LON/00AE/LSC/2022/0231 — service charge decision
In LON/00AE/LSC/2022/0231, decided 24 January 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 11, Abbotsford Court, 3 Lakeside Drive, Park Royal, London NW10 7FZ and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 11, Abbotsford Court, 3 Lakeside Drive, Park Royal, London NW10 7FZ
Decision date: 24 January 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: First Central Management Company Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £225.36 | £225.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £169.82 | £169.82 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £206.92 | £206.92 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the service charges claimed in the sums for 2020 of £225.36, for 2021 of £169.82 and for 2022 of £206.92 are, for the reasons set out above, both reasonable and payable by the applicant to the respondent.”
“The Tribunal determines that the service charges claimed in the sums for 2020 of £225.36, for 2021 of £169.82 and for 2022 of £206.92 are, for the reasons set out above, both reasonable and payable by the applicant to the respondent.”
“The Tribunal determines that the service charges claimed in the sums for 2020 of £225.36, for 2021 of £169.82 and for 2022 of £206.92 are, for the reasons set out above, both reasonable and payable by the applicant to the respondent.”
“It was apparent to the Tribunal that the applicant's case lacked detail and substance. There were simply repeated requested for further information. The respondent simply failed to say why or how the service charges were unreasonable.”
“the applicant has failed to provide any information as to the reasons he believes the work was not carried out or not carried out to a proper standard and provided no evidence to support his assertions for the respondent to deal with.”
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.