LON/00AC/LSC/2022/0263 — service charge decision
In LON/00AC/LSC/2022/0263, decided 1 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at Princess Park Manor, Royal Drive, London N11 3FL and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Princess Park Manor, Royal Drive, London N11 3FL
Decision date: 1 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Comer.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £268,708 | £268,708 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £347,334 | £347,334 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £603,738 | £603,738 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020-21) | — | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | £50 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | £50 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | £50 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“we are not persuaded that the amount charged in any one of the disputed years is unreasonable, including the year after the fire when the premium increased by a large amount.”
“we are not persuaded that the amount charged in any one of the disputed years is unreasonable”
“we are not persuaded that the amount charged in any one of the disputed years is unreasonable”
“the Represented Respondents' contribution towards the cost of the window refurbishment works is limited to £250 each.”
“The management fee is reduced to £250 + VAT per unit for each of the service charge years 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23.”
“The management fee is reduced to £250 + VAT per unit for each of the service charge years 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23.”
“They failed to consult on the window refurbishment programme, they have presided over an opaque set of decisions involving the carrying out of work by sister companies without much evident scrutiny, and we also have concerns about the terms of the Megadene contract (see later) negotiated or overseen by Comer.”
“Ms Lisibach was quite a hesitant witness and did not perform particularly well under pressure”
“we agree with the Represented Respondents that it is a commercially onerous contract for the Applicant to have taken on and that the evidence indicates that Comer made no attempt to negotiate it properly or even to scrutinise it.”
“We accept that the Applicant has been reticent in providing certain pieces of information.”
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.