There is something curious about the way we view service charges.

Mention a £5,000 annual service charge on an apartment and you can almost see the hesitation. Eyebrows rise. Calculators appear. Suddenly, what seemed like an attractive property becomes a more complicated proposition.

Yet mention that same figure to someone maintaining a substantial house, particularly an older one, and they might quietly wonder how you manage to maintain an entire building for so little.

The difference, of course, is perception.

One cost is clearly defined and presented for consideration before a purchase. The other is largely invisible until something goes wrong.

And in a world where the cost of maintaining property has risen considerably, perhaps we've been looking at this the wrong way around.

The cost of the unknown

Owning a house has never been inexpensive, but maintaining one today is a very different proposition from even a decade ago.

Building materials, skilled labour, scaffolding, roofing, glazing, insurance and external decoration all represent significant expenditure. Add the particular challenges of island life, where specialist contractors, imported materials and exposure to the elements can influence costs, and the numbers become uncomfortable remarkably quickly.

To put this into perspective, UK construction material prices were approximately 56% higher in 2025 than in 2015, according to figures analysed by the Building Cost Information Service. Some individual materials experienced even sharper increases. Between 2021 and 2025 alone, precast concrete products rose by approximately 51%, while thermal and acoustic insulation increased by more than 51%.

These are UK benchmarks rather than Channel Islands-specific figures, but they illustrate the scale of change. The work hasn't necessarily become more elaborate, nor the building larger. Yet the cost of carrying out essential maintenance can be considerably higher.

Then there is the inconvenience.

Anyone who has attempted to arrange relatively minor works recently will understand the frustration. Finding a reliable tradesperson willing to undertake a small job can be challenging enough. Finding one whose availability remotely resembles your own schedule can be another matter entirely.

Consider those homeowners dealing with storm damage last week.

For anyone living in a house, the responsibility is theirs. Assessing the damage, contacting insurers and desperately trying to persuade an already overstretched builder to come and take a look. You can almost picture the sharp intake of breath through their teeth as they explain just how busy they are, how long you might have to wait and, inevitably, that it won't be cheap.

Meanwhile, in a well-managed apartment development, the process can be remarkably different. One phone call to the managing agent and the organisation of repairs, contractors and any relevant building insurance claim can be taken out of your hands.

The work still needs doing, the costs still need covering and contractors may be just as busy. But the responsibility for coordinating everything no longer rests solely on your shoulders.

The difference isn't necessarily what the repair costs. It's who has to deal with it.

There are financial benefits to collective responsibility too. Building insurance, external maintenance and communal facilities are funded across residents according to their respective obligations, rather than falling entirely on one homeowner.

And when life is already busy enough, that combination of shared costs and reduced responsibility has genuine value.

Yesterday's prices, today's reality

Part of the problem is psychological.

People often remain in their homes for many years, and their expectations of property costs can remain firmly rooted in the past.

Consider Mr Smith, who viewed an apartment in 2015. It was marketed at £350,000 with a service charge of £100 per month.

Today, that same apartment might be worth £500,000, but the service charge has increased to £400 per month.

Mr Smith is horrified.

And therein lies the problem. Mr Smith's head is still in 2015.

To him, it feels like yesterday. The prices are familiar, the comparison seems reasonable and the increase feels almost impossible to justify.

But 2015 was eleven years ago.

And eleven years is an extraordinarily long time, not just in economic terms, but in life itself.

Let's put that into perspective.

Imagine welcoming a child into the world in 2015. One of life's greatest milestones. You spend the first five years watching them grow, learning to walk, talk and discover the world before they've even started school. Then come the infant years, followed by junior school and, before you know it, they're preparing to leave primary education and move on to secondary school.

That tiny baby you brought home in 2015 is now an independent, increasingly opinionated young person, with their own personality, friendships and ideas about the world. Their earliest childhood is already behind them.

All in eleven years.

And while that child has been growing up, the world around them has been changing just as dramatically.

Brexit, a global pandemic, wars and geopolitical instability, changes in political leadership, disrupted supply chains, an energy crisis, inflation and significant movements in interest rates. Each has contributed, directly or indirectly, to the financial landscape we navigate today.

Eleven years is not yesterday. It's an entire chapter of life.

Yet when it comes to property costs, we sometimes expect the world to have stood still.

Mr Smith's expectations may remain in 2015, but the building he is considering has been ageing and requiring maintenance through every one of those eleven years.

His apartment may have increased in value by approximately 43%, but the costs of maintaining it have followed an entirely different trajectory. Insurance, labour, materials and essential building services don't rise in line with property values.

A fourfold increase in service charges deserves proper examination. It may reflect more realistic maintenance budgets, increased insurance costs or contributions towards previously neglected reserves. Equally, it may expose poor financial management.

But dismissing the figure simply because it was considerably lower eleven years ago overlooks everything that has happened in between.

Mr Smith isn't necessarily wrong to question the increase. He would be wrong not to consider the bigger picture.

Nostalgia is understandable, but it isn't a maintenance strategy.

Today's savings, tomorrow's liabilities

I would be far more concerned about a development where service charges have been kept artificially low for years.

A modest annual contribution might look appealing on a property listing, but what happens when the roof needs replacing, the exterior requires substantial refurbishment or an unexpected structural problem emerges?

Without adequate reserves, owners can suddenly face demands for thousands, potentially tens of thousands, of pounds each.

Not everyone will have the money available. Works can be delayed, disagreements emerge and the building's condition can deteriorate. Prospective purchasers become nervous, lenders may question the security and sales can stall while uncertainty surrounds the development.

The reputational damage can affect every apartment, including those belonging to owners who have always met their obligations.

A realistic service charge, supported by transparent accounts, sensible reserves and a proper maintenance programme, is surely preferable to an artificially attractive figure that stores up problems for the future.

Paying too little can ultimately prove considerably more expensive.

The affordability contradiction

There are, however, legitimate concerns.

Many apartments are particularly suited to older residents, including those downsizing from larger family homes. Yet these purchasers may also be relying on pensions or accumulated savings rather than regular employment income.

For someone on a fixed income, a £400 monthly service charge represents £4,800 annually. That is a meaningful financial commitment, particularly when increases may be unavoidable.

Affordability must therefore be considered carefully, alongside the building's financial health and anticipated future expenditure.

But there is another contradiction worth examining.

We are increasingly hearing of mortgage lenders scrutinising service charges as part of their affordability assessments, sometimes creating additional obstacles for apartment purchasers.

Of course lenders should assess recurring financial commitments. But are they applying the same consideration to the substantial, less predictable costs associated with owning a house?

Consider a young couple who stretch themselves to purchase their first house. With rising building costs, limited disposable income and the competing demands of everyday life, essential maintenance is repeatedly postponed. The exterior deteriorates, repairs become more expensive and, over time, the property begins to fall into disrepair.

Surely that should be of greater concern to a lender than an apartment purchaser making regular, structured contributions towards a professionally managed building with an established maintenance programme and adequate reserves?

After all, the condition of a property is fundamental to protecting the value of the lender's security.

A householder may have no monthly service charge, but that doesn't mean they have no maintenance liabilities. It simply means those costs are less visible, less predictable and potentially easier to ignore.

The absence of a service charge is not the absence of financial risk.

Perhaps mortgage lenders need to reconsider how they assess these commitments, recognising that planned, accountable expenditure can be a positive rather than an automatic obstacle.

The bigger picture

In Jersey and Guernsey, where coastal exposure, specialist trades and the logistics of island construction can make property maintenance particularly demanding, this conversation feels especially relevant.

We should be asking more questions about what service charges deliver rather than instinctively objecting to their existence.

Is the building properly maintained? Are reserves adequate? Is insurance included? Are future works anticipated? Is the management transparent and accountable?

A high service charge is not automatically poor value, just as a low one is not necessarily a bargain.

Perhaps the fairest comparison is not between a property with a service charge and one without, but between the total costs, responsibilities and uncertainties of owning each.

Because a well-managed service charge is more than money leaving your account. It is a contribution towards protecting your property, sharing financial responsibility and removing some of the inconvenience of ownership.

It cannot eliminate unexpected expenditure, and it should never be accepted without scrutiny. But neither should it be viewed as an automatic disadvantage.

In an increasingly expensive and complicated world, knowing that someone is planning, budgeting and taking responsibility for the building you call home has a value of its own.

Perhaps it is time to stop being frightened of the costs we can see and start giving more consideration to those we cannot.

SERVICE CHARGES: STRIKING A BALANCE.

Our Founder & CEO, Simon Torode, discusses why it might be time to reconsider our attitude towards apartment service charges, the true cost of maintaining property and the often-overlooked benefits of shared responsibility.

Keep Reading

THE WINTER EDIT

RAISING THE BAR

A GUERNSEY RITE OF PASSAGE: DOES CONVEYANCING COURT STILL MATTER?