LON/00AD/LSC/2022/0001 — service charge decision
In LON/00AD/LSC/2022/0001, decided 16 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flat 33 Penton House and Flat 29 Osney House, Hartslock Drive, SE2 and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 33 Penton House and Flat 29 Osney House, Hartslock Drive, SE2
Decision date: 16 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary |
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Utilities (2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Utilities (2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“this charge was unreasonable: there is no explanation as to why the tenants should pay twice for something which on the face of the Applicant's case was badly installed or damaged (insurance?) and the responsibility of the contractor.”
“the costs making up the sum of £17,604.79 do not relate to the Applicant's flat. These items relate to the installation or replacement of balcony wind/acoustic screens and associated works in various flats which did not include the Applicant's as he had already fitted his own which was not replaced.”
“these items which amount to £23,512.50 do not apply to the Applicant because he opted out of having new kitchen and bathroom windows (with fans) installed.”
“having explored what this item relates to with the Applicant, we have concluded on the evidence before us that it was a reasonable charge.”
“None of these works were referable to the Applicant's flat because he retained his existing wind/acoustic balcony screen.”
“we accept that repair obligations were not affected by the COVID legislation but do not agree that necessarily means that extra charges attributable to the lockdown and delays could not be included in service charges.”
“The Applicant confirmed to us orally that he had received nothing from the Respondent, and a search of the Tribunal court file and emails reveals no contact from the Respondent whatsoever in respect of this case.”
“His claims would have been relatively simple to answer, particularly in view of the relatively low financial value of the claim.”
“the Respondent has not made any disclosure, provided any evidence, or explained its case in any form, formal or informal.”
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.