LON/00AB/LSC/2023/0159 — service charge decision
In LON/00AB/LSC/2023/0159, decided 21 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 189 City View, IG1 1NL and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 189 City View, IG1 1NL
Decision date: 21 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Millpond Properties Limited (managing agent representative: Mr Sullivan).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2014-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2014-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2014-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2014-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Staffing & concierge (2014-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2020-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Insofar as the Respondent presented any meaningful case, we are satisfied from the Applicant's written and oral evidence that none of the objections to the service charges could result in a finding that those service charges were either unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred.”
“Window cleaning charges: The Applicant's response was that windows were cleaned once a year in 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2020, and it was only in these years that the charges were included in the budgets.”
“Landscaping charges: The Applicant stated that landscaping takes place monthly. There was little else that they could add given the lack of any detail in the Respondent's objections.”
“Use of EON as a utility supplier: There was no evidence presented by the Respondent that the Applicant could realistically respond to.”
“Lift charges: It was explained by the Applicant that the lift breakdowns were caused by wear and tear, or misuse, and so not a matter for the original developer or for an insurance claim.”
“there were two concierges on site and part of their responsibilities would be to check in contractors and to check that the works had been completed.”
“The Respondent's case, in response to the requirements of the directions, was set out in an undated statement”
“In general terms, the case put forward by the Respondent can be described as vague and without any supporting evidence. In the event, the Respondent failed to use the schedule attached to the directions to set out any specific challenges to the Service Charges.”
“The Respondent did not keep any contemporaneous records or other notes regarding the matters she complained of. For example, she was unable to give any dates for the left breakdowns or any dates or periods for the lack of window cleaning.”
“The way in which the Respondent presented her case caused the Applicant some difficulties in trying to formally respond and similarly caused problems for the tribunal in trying to ascertain the details of objections and the evidence for those objections.”
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.