LON/00AD/LSC/2021/0001 — service charge decision
In LON/00AD/LSC/2021/0001, decided 14 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 50 Fairview Drive, Thamesmead, London SE28 8QL and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 50 Fairview Drive, Thamesmead, London SE28 8QL
Decision date: 14 July 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Property Services Limited (formerly OM Management Services Limited).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £3,100 | £1,500 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £3,628 | £2,000 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-22) | £10,000 | £2,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | £240 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2021-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (pre-2020) | £3,847.88 | £3,847.88 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We find that for the year 2020/2021 the reasonable premium would be circa £1,500, which is half the premium charged by the Applicant.”
“for the following year the estimated premium of £3,628, presumably including terrorism, should be reduced to £2,000 for the same reasons we have set out above.”
“To increase the reserve fund contribution from £200 to £10,000 in one go is, we find unreasonable, even if it is accepted that the Estate Reserve fund is too low.”
“a cost to the Residents of circa £200 per annum, whilst unwanted, is not an excessive charge.”
“We find that the £240 in respect of legal review fees is irrecoverable under the terms of the lease for the very same reasons that costs are not recoverable.”
“there is a sum sought for roofing works shown on the demands for 2021/22, which should be expunged from both Mr Al-Deen and Mrs Omolodun accounts.”
“We are disappointed that the Applicant did not think it necessary to obtain a statement from FirstPort Insurance Services Limited who would have been able to confirm whether or not that they tested the market and what arrangements there were for commission.”
“It is with some disappointment that we record that it was only during the evening between the two days that he received a breakdown of the accounts for each year, which we feel should have been produced to him early on.”
“It is perhaps appropriate at stage to make some comment on the lack of documentation and assistance given to Mr Al-Deen by the Applicant. They failed to comply with the directions requiring disclosure of documentation and to complete the Scott Schedule, which Mr Al-Deen had himself prepared.”
“This is not acceptable and added to the time spent on this case.”
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.