LON/00/00BC/LSC/2024/0175 — service charge decision
In LON/00/00BC/LSC/2024/0175, decided 21 November 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 135 and 135A, 137 and 137A Ravensbourne Gardens, Ilford, Essex and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 135 and 135A, 137 and 137A Ravensbourne Gardens, Ilford, Essex
Decision date: 21 November 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023-2024) | £7,756.63 | £7,756.38 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £1,080 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2023-2024) | £1,070.82 | — | Reduced | Historic neglect, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £121.90 | — | Reduced | Historic neglect, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We are not satisfied that the sums claimed for scaffolding were unreasonable. The tribunal determines that the total amount payable in respect of scaffolding is £7756.38, or £1939.10 per leaseholder.”
“it was not reasonable for the Respondent to refuse this request. Consequently this charge was not reasonably incurred and is thus not payable by the Applicants.”
“We consider that the First Applicant should not have to pay any of this charge as it was her property that was most seriously affected. We reduce the sum payable by the remaining Applicants to £150, or 50% of the total payable by each leaseholder.”
“We consider that this is such a case. All four leaseholders have had to live with a leaking roof for far longer than they should have.”
“given the unexplained and substantial delay which had already occurred for which no good reason has been given by the Respondent, it was not reasonable for the Respondent to refuse this request.”
“All four leaseholders have had to live with a leaking roof for far longer than they should have.”
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.