LON/00AC/LSC/2022/0184 — service charge decision
In LON/00AC/LSC/2022/0184, decided 24 April 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Barnabas Apartments, 40A Holden Road, London N12 7AW and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Barnabas Apartments, 40A Holden Road, London N12 7AW
Decision date: 24 April 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £12,261 | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Management fees (2020) | £5,409 | £1,803 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £23,419 | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Utilities (2021) | £7,617 | £1,200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £4,188 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £2,760 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Based on the information before us we consider that a reasonable charge for the Estate for a whole year would be £17,000. The Property comprises 21 units out of a total of 30 units on the Estate, and in the absence of any arguments to the contrary the Property should bear 70% of the cost (21 being 70% of 30). This means that the charge for the Property for the whole year is £11,900.”
“We accept, based on the Applicants' written and oral submissions which have not been countered by or on behalf of the Respondent, that the managing agents provided a very poor service. However, the managing agents did attend to certain matters and therefore it is appropriate that a fee be payable, albeit a greatly reduced one. We consider that it would be appropriate to reduce the management fees by two-thirds.”
“In our view the same arguments that we have accepted above in relation to 2020 apply to 2021. Therefore, again, the charge for the Property for the whole year is £11,900 (£17,000 x 70%).”
“The Respondent has been either unable or unwilling to explain how the electricity charges of £7,617 could be so much higher than the budgeted sum of £1,200, and £7,617 does seem to us to be unreasonably high in the absence of any justification. Therefore, the charges are reduced to £1,200 which seems a reasonable amount in the circumstances.”
“The Applicants' specific challenges are all credible and have not been disputed by or on behalf of the Respondent. Therefore, these charges are disallowed.”
“Their understanding is that it related to an EWS1 (external wall system fire review) certification needed by the Respondent to enable it to sell the Property and therefore it was not a service charge item. Again, this is a credible challenge which has not been disputed by or on behalf of the Respondent. Therefore, this charge is disallowed.”
“Mr O'Callaghan for the Respondent explained at the start of the hearing that he had been instructed very late and had no specific instructions on any of the issues. The tribunal noted that the Respondent had not made any written submissions.”
“the Respondent has completely failed to engage with the process or to communicate properly with the Applicants.”
“the Respondent has offered no evidence to show that the Property was not overvalued for insurance purposes and/or that the Applicants' alternative insurers were using too low a value”
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.