BIR/00AK/LIS/2023/0003 — service charge decision
In BIR/00AK/LIS/2023/0003, decided 9 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 21 disputed service charge items at Flat 44 Pevensey Avenue, Enfield, EN1 3HT and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 44 Pevensey Avenue, Enfield, EN1 3HT
Decision date: 9 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019) | £611.17 | £465.93 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2019) | £22,550.56 | £22,550.56 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £5,866.97 | £5,866.97 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £4,289.02 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £570.89 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £6,050.57 | £1,000 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £264.99 | £264.99 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £34,010.73 | £34,010.73 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £1,335.76 | £1,335.76 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £535.25 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Major works (2019) | £395 | £395 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £2,974.08 | £2,974.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £6,386 | £6,386 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £1,411.50 | £1,411.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £943.02 | £943.02 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £5,789.58 | £5,789.58 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2019) | £7,636.44 | £7,636.44 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £14,095.03 | £14,095.03 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019) | £6,463.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2019) | £8,699.17 | £4,349.58 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £5,215.10 | £4,182.95 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“LH0 Preliminaries – Allow at 5.13% of allowed cost of works (accept Council's %age) – Not allowed £1,741.90 / Allowed £5,592.17”
“LH2 Scaffold – CR 2.1 – 2.4 – Allowed £22,550.56”
“LH3 Asbestos surveys & removal – CR 2.4.2 & 12.0 supports – Allowed £5,866.97”
“LH5 Concrete repair works – CR 4.2 insufficient to support – Not allowed £4,289.02”
“LH7 Structural investigations to external walls – No report produced – Not allowed £570.89”
“LH8 Brickwork repairs to External Walls – CR 4.1 supports limited work we assess as reasonably costing £1,000 – Not allowed £5,050.57 / Allowed £1,000.00”
“It is a shame that nobody from the Council was able to give any evidence to us about the detail of the contracts and the contracting process, and why the hearing bundle seemed to have included an enclosure to a letter some 513 pages away from its rightful place.”
“It would have been much easier for the Tribunal to make good decisions in this case if the Council's Clerk of Works or a building manager familiar with the works had provided evidence to us.”
“Mr Onabolu was unable to offer a justification for commencing proceedings in the County Court rather than the Tribunal that I found convincing.”
This summary is assembled from the structured record of the published decision; amounts appear only where the tribunal stated them. Always rely on the full decision itself.