LON/00AB/LSC/2023/0326 — service charge decision
In LON/00AB/LSC/2023/0326, decided 31 January 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 59 Webbscroft Road, Romford and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 59 Webbscroft Road, Romford
Decision date: 31 January 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Price and Co (John Price and Co).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“On a balance of probabilities we decide that the service charge demands were received by the Applicant. The demands were sent to his address in a timely fashion and therefore they did not fall foul of the 18-month rule under s.20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”
“On a balance of probabilities we decide that the service charge demands were received by the Applicant. The demands were sent to his address in a timely fashion and therefore they did not fall foul of the 18-month rule under s.20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”
“On a balance of probabilities we decide that the service charge demands were received by the Applicant. The demands were sent to his address in a timely fashion and therefore they did not fall foul of the 18-month rule under s.20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”
“The £1000 additional charge made at a time when the Respondents were facing the very real risk of being wound up was both reasonable and prudent. It was also permitted under the lease (see paragraph 10 of the third schedule).”
“We are satisfied that the insurance premiums which increased as a result of the flood are reasonable and payable. The Applicant failed to offer any alternative quotes.”
“He maintained this position despite there being correspondence in the bundle showing demands for each of the years in question with his address on the demands. He did not allege fraudulent conduct but was unable to explain why he did not receive this correspondence.”
“The Applicant failed to elucidate on this argument at the hearing.”
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.