LON/00AE/LSC/2021/0415 — service charge decision
In LON/00AE/LSC/2021/0415, decided 29 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 33B Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 5JZ and found largely for the leaseholder: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 33B Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware, Middlesex HA8 5JZ
Decision date: 29 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2015) | £388.76 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2016) | £464.95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2017) | £401.73 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £468.13 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | — | — | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2020-2022) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The respondents failed to insure the property known as 33 Burnt Oak Broadway...for the service charge years 2015 to 2018 in the name of the respondent lessors. Therefore the whole of the following premiums are not reasonable or payable by the applicant.”
“The respondents failed to insure the property...for the service charge years 2015 to 2018 in the name of the respondent lessors. Therefore the whole of the following premiums are not reasonable or payable by the applicant.”
“The respondents failed to insure the property...for the service charge years 2015 to 2018 in the name of the respondent lessors. Therefore the whole of the following premiums are not reasonable or payable by the applicant.”
“The respondents failed to insure the property...for the service charge years 2015 to 2018 in the name of the respondent lessors. Therefore the whole of the following premiums are not reasonable or payable by the applicant.”
“The insurance premiums for the service charge years 2019 to 2022 are not reasonable in amount as the Schedule of Cover does not comply with the respondents' insurance obligations under the terms of the lease and include heads of insurance that affect and benefit only the commercial unit.”
“The insurance premiums for the service charge years 2019 to 2022 are not reasonable in amount as the Schedule of Cover does not comply with the respondents' insurance obligations under the terms of the lease and include heads of insurance that affect and benefit only the commercial unit.”
“The tribunal finds this statement is incorrect, as the respondents are not the named insured as required by the lease.”
“The tribunal dismisses the respondents' 'unofficial' claim for costs supported by a Costs Schedule in the sum of £3,085.20. The tribunal is a 'no costs' jurisdiction and the respondents have neither explained under what provision they are seeking their costs or have in fact, made any application for cots.”
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.