Balcony costs: Residents wrongly charged

The Hastings Rents Assessment Panel heard how, at the end of July, a number of leasees of April Place in Bexhill had received a letter from the management agents stating that the balcony railings needed to be replaced and that the freeholder would attend to this extra work.

In the middle of August the leasees were given another letter demanding payment of nearly 250 for the work done on the balcony railings.

The tribunal heard that the landlords had not provided any alternative quotes and had simply applied to the contractor on site for a price, which they had accepted.

It then became apparent that the replacement of the railings was not considered a communal expense and that the leases provided for the individual leaseholders to be responsible for maintaining their own balcony railings.

Management Agent, Godfrey John of Godfrey John and Partners Independent Estate Agents said: "I did nothing wrong.

"The work needed doing on the balconies and the railings and, as the contractors scaffolding was already in place and insured I thought it would be best to use it for the work."

Mr John did accept that he made a mistake in assuming that it was the Landlord's responsibility to repair and replace the railings and he accepted that on a proper construction of the lease it was the leasee's responsibility and not the freeholder's but he was still adamant that he should be entitled to pass on the charge to the leasees by way of service charge.

The tribunal ruled in favour of the leasees and stated that of the 7,755 demanded, not a single penny could be deemed recoverable as service charge.

A dispute over external repair and decoration of the buildings and garages of April Place was also concluded as the tribunal judged that of the 4,975 demanded by the management agent, only 4,720 was recoverable by way of a service charge meaning the residents had been over charged by 255.

The issue of the amount residents were paying for their insurance premiums was also covered by the findings of the tribunal and they ruled that for the period 2000 to 2004 the amounts demanded by way of insurance premiums, including a reduced amount for the current year, are payable and recoverable in full.

The tribunal also decided that amounts demanded as contained in the amended service charge regarding water charges are also payable and recoverable in full.

Lastly, the tribunal judged that Mr John was not allowed to recover the costs of facing the tribunal, including fees to third parties, by adding the amount on to future service charges for April Place.