LON/00AC/LSC/2023/0439 — service charge decision
In LON/00AC/LSC/2023/0439, decided 29 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at Simmay Villas, 152 Holders Hill Road, London, NW7 1LU and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Simmay Villas, 152 Holders Hill Road, London, NW7 1LU
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates (Mr R Gurvits).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £1,413.69 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2023) | £240 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“There is nothing in either the demands themselves or in the papers relating to the previous applications that gives any indication as to what the service charges demanded relate.”
“Evidently, none make provision for the charging of an administration fee for demanding the ground rent.”
“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”
“Mr Gurvits is an extremely experienced property manager. He cannot have been unaware that he could not issue service charge demands in respect of expenditure after the acquisition date. Yet he did so, conceding on challenge. Similarly, it is likely that he appreciated that the September 2023 service charge demands were implausible, but made them. And less than three months later, again made these demands. If nothing else, it is surprising that a property manager of his experience would consider it appropriate to make two demands so close together. These circumstances cry out for an explanation. In defiance of the Tribunal's directions, the Respondent has provided none.”
“it is difficult to believe that a property manager of Mr Gurvits' experience could have thought that such a fee could be properly charged.”
“The Respondent, in failing to adhere to the directions, but nonetheless failing to withdraw the demands, has again acted unconscionably, and an order to reimburse the application fee is appropriate in those circumstances.”
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.