LON/00AC/LSC/2022/0188 — service charge decision
In LON/00AC/LSC/2022/0188, decided 29 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 29 disputed service charge items at The Bower, 42 Holden Road, London N12 7DN and reached a mixed result: 13 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: The Bower, 42 Holden Road, London N12 7DN
Decision date: 29 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2020) | £1,347 | £808.20 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £1,002 | £1,002 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2020) | £642 | £642 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £1,717 | £1,717 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £8,332 | £6,000 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020) | £1,116 | £372 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2021) | £1,433 | £1,433 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2021) | £7,761 | £800 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2021) | £660 | £660 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,517 | £1,517 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £1,257 | £1,257 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £4,493 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Lifts (2021) | £1,197 | £1,197 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £10,032 | £6,000 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £2,350 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2021) | £694 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £3,240 | £3,240 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2021) | £735 | £735 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,130 | £1,130 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £6,000 | £6,000 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2022) | £800 | £800 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2022) | £2,400 | £2,400 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2022) | £1,100 | £660 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £1,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £1,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £3,600 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2022) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2022) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £400 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“As the Applicants have only received six-tenths of the service they were entitled to receive they should only have to pay six-tenths (or 60%) of the cost. 60% of £1,347 is £808.20, and therefore only £808.20 is payable.”
“The Applicants have produced no documentation in support of their position and have been unable to point to anything in their leases or in correspondence in support of their position.”
“This challenge is therefore in our view too vague and insufficiently supported or even argued to constitute a prima facie case.”
“the Applicants have produced no documentation in support of their position and have been unable to point to anything in their leases or in correspondence in support of their position. In the absence of better information, this challenge fails”
“we accept that £8,332 is an unreasonably high charge. In the absence of any better evidence, we consider in the circumstances that a reasonable charge would be £6,000, this being the amount that the Respondent itself has budgeted for in 2022.”
“the evidence before us, whilst slightly thin, does indicate that the performance of the managing agents has been very poor... Having considered the evidence before us and all the circumstances, we consider that the management fees should be reduced by two-thirds to £372.”
“The Respondent had wholly failed to engage with these proceedings to date and had provided no explanation other than that the Respondent was in dispute with its managing agent.”
“the Respondent has simply not responded. It has neither engaged with the Applicants' concerns nor explained what it has spent the money on, let alone explained why such expenditure was considered necessary.”
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.