LON/00AC/LSC/2023/0340 — service charge decision
In LON/00AC/LSC/2023/0340, decided 13 December 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Simmay Villas, 152 Holders Hill Road, London NW7 1LU and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Simmay Villas, 152 Holders Hill Road, London NW7 1LU
Decision date: 13 December 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Utilities (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent is not entitled to resile from the concessions made in the first application. This disposes of the items listed in paragraph 16 above without more.”
“The Respondent is not entitled to resile from the concessions made in the first application. This disposes of the items listed in paragraph 16 above without more.”
“The Respondent is not entitled to resile from the concessions made in the first application.”
“The Respondent is not entitled to resile from the concessions made in the first application.”
“The Respondent is not entitled to resile from the concessions made in the first application.”
“That it was instructed before the acquisition date does not make it recoverable, if the expenditure was incurred after the acquisition date... why would the Respondent think it necessary to have a drone survey? It is clearly an unusual step, and one that requires explanation. There is none before the Tribunal.”
“The Respondent, in continuing to defend this application, has acted unconscionably, and an order to reimburse the application fee is appropriate in those circumstances.”
“more generally, the conduct of the Respondent is redolent of an attempt to punish, or extract value from, tenants who have successfully exercised the right to manage.”
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.