LVT/0062/12/13: 2 Splashpoint, Rhyl
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Applied Rules | Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 - Service Charges |
| Date | 02 September 2014 |
| Year | 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Section 27A |
| Court | Leasehold Valuation Tribunals |
| Judgement Number | LVT/0062/12/13 |
Page 1 of 41
Y TRIBIWNLYS EIDDO PRESWYL
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL
LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
Reference: LVT/0062/12/13
In the Matter of Apartment 2 Splashpoint, 10 Hilton Drive, Rhyl LL18 3BF
In the matter of an Application under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
TRIBUNAL Timothy Walsh (Chairman)
Colin Williams (Surveyor)
APPLICANT Ground Rents (Regis) Ltd
RESPONDENT Timothy Wayne Hughes
REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
The Decision in Summary
1. For the reasons given below we determine as follows:
1.1 The pleaded claim for “service charges” from 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013 in the
sum of £469.36 is in fact for the balance due on the Respondent’s account on or
around 18 April 2013. That account had included administration charges and service
charges. However, the liability that placed the account ostensibly into arrears of
469.36 was the 1 January 2013 service charge liability of £594.53.
1.2 The interim service charge for 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2013 of £594.53 was based
on an annual budget for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 of £22,592.00
and so an annual interim service charge of £1,189.05. We determine that a
reasonable budget was £18,130.78. The interim service charge is accordingly
reduced to £954.25 for the full financial year and £477.13 for six months. The claim
for the “service charge” balance is therefore reduced by £234.80 from £469.36 to
£234.56. It is obviously necessary to determine the service charge li ability by
reference to the whole year and not just the six months of the pleaded claim.
1.3 We accordingly determine that the sum of £234.56 is recoverable as “service
charges”. That determination is without prejudice to the Respondent’s entitlement
Page 2 of 41
to challenge administration charges dated 14 December 2011 and 2 March 2012
which form part of the account balance.
1.4 We determine that the actual expenditure for the year 2012/2013 was reasonably
incurred and to a reasonable standard and we reject all three of the Respondent’s
challenges to actual expenditure accordingly. As the Respondent received a credit
for £768.47 against the overpaid interim service charge on 5 September 2013 the
reduction in the interim service charge does not therefore affect the balance
outstanding on the Respondent’s account.
1.5 The amount of the pleaded administration charges of £144.00 and £198.00 was
unreasonable. We determine that reasonable administration charges for those
expenses were £40 and £100 plus VAT and so £168 in total.
1.6 We determine that a clai m of four and a half hours to issue a basic claim at grade B
fee earner rates is unreasonable. A reasonable cost for such work is three hours at
£200 and so £600 plus VAT which would be appropriate, if incurred, for the work up
to receipt of the Defence. This would reduce the claimed legal costs from £1,000 to
£640. We have not otherwise considered or made any determination as to the
reasonableness of the legal costs incurred for the purposes of section 19 of the 1985
Act.
1.7 Under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 we determine that 20% of
the costs incurred by the landlord in connection with the proceedings should not to
be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of
any service charge payable.
Background
The parties and the property
2. The Applicant is Ground Rents (Regis) Limited. It is the freehold owner of land and buildings
which form an estate known as “Splash Point” (“the Estate”) whi ch is located in Hilton Drive
in Rhyl. That freehold reversion is registered with HM Land Registry under title number
CYM135135. The Estate is divided i nto 19 flats or apartments all of which are held under
999 year terms commencing on 30 June 2006; they were evidently granted by the
Applicant’s predecessor in title, NWPS Developments Limited. The Applicant became the
registered freehold owner of the reversion on 18 June 2010. It brings this application as the
landlord of “Apartment 2”which is one of the 19 leasehold properties on the Estate.
Page 3 of 41
3. The Respondent is Mr. Timothy Hughes. He is the tenant and registered leasehold owner of
Apartment 2 under title number CYM330223. He purchased that flat on 7 December 2006
and holds Apartment 2 under a lease (“the Lease”) of that date.
4. At 11.00 a. m. on 8 April 2014 the Tribunal conducted a site inspection. We were attended
by the Applicant’s counsel and representatives but not by the Respondent or his solicitor.
We were unable to see the interior of Apartment 2. We were given a tour of the exterior
and internal common parts, wi th the former comprising a short drive accessed from Marine
Drive to the west which leads down to a walled but open car park. There are inoperational
electric gates at the east end of the drive. There is a grassed area located to the north of the
flats which was reasonably well tended although not, we were told, by the Applicant. There
is also a limited amount of parking to the south of the flats accessible from Hilton Drive. The
flats themselves are located at ground, first and second floor levels with two in ternal
staircases serving the flats. The plan to the Lease at page 97 of the hearing bundle provides
a general guide but was based on an architect’s plan for the development and so is not
entirely accurate.
5. This matter originally came on for hearing on 8 April 2014 when the Applicant was
represented by Mr. Richard Adkinson of Counsel. The Respondent was not present in
person but was represented by Mr. John Owens of John Owens Solicitors. When the matter
came back for hearing on a second day on 16 July 2014 Mr. Owens continued to act for the
Respondent but the Applicant was represented by Ms. Rowena Meager of Counsel.
6. The i nitial hearing was somewhat unsatisfactory. There was a short delay in commencing
the hearing because it had not been communicated to the tribunal members that the
Respondent would not be attending the site v isit. When the hearing did commence some
time was spent in narrowing the issues and with the Applicant opening the case and,
ultimately, applying for an adjournment. Insofar as it is material, we shall explain the
significance of that below. No wi tness evi dence was called on 8 April 2014 and it was no
doubt on that basis that Mr. Adkinson felt able to hand the reins over to Ms. Meager. On 16
July 2014 Ms. Meager also supplied a dditional written skeleton submissions to which the
Tribunal has had regard.
To continue reading
Request your trial