Decision summary

LON/00AE/LSC/2022/0332 — service charge decision

In LON/00AE/LSC/2022/0332, decided 12 December 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at 29 Thanet Lodge, 10 Mapesbury Road, London NW2 4JA and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 29 Thanet Lodge, 10 Mapesbury Road, London NW2 4JA
Decision date: 12 December 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: HML Property Management Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Major works (2019-20)ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Major works (2019-20)£250ReducedNo Section 20 consultation
Major works (2019-20)£250ReducedNo Section 20 consultation
Major works (2019-20)Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2019-20)£5,712Allowed in full
Other charges (2020-21)£12,540£0Disallowed entirelyOther grounds
Repairs & maintenance (2020-21)£3,904Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2020)£13,284£250ReducedNo Section 20 consultation
Repairs & maintenance (2021)£4,007Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2020-21)Allowed in full
Legal & professional costs (2020-21)£7,218£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease

Key passages (verbatim)

“There is no evidence that the insurance-backed guarantee was ever obtained and so the relevant costs must be reduced by £1,400 when calculating the resulting service charge.”
On major works
“The Respondent conceded that the Applicant's service charge in relation to the roof works should be limited to £250.”
On major works
“the Respondent erred in thinking that the consultation requirements were not engaged and conceded that the Applicant's service charge in relation to the external decorations should be limited to £250.”
On major works
“Further external decoration work was carried out to the other side of the building at a cost of £3,983.”
On major works
“Works to the rainwater pipes were carried out by another contractor, Cascadia, at a cost of £5,712.”
On repairs & maintenance
“in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule 8, no service charge is payable in respect of them.”
On other charges
“Their agents, HML, should have been able to provide details but, apparently, decided to ignore the Respondent's reasonable requests to do so.”
Of HML Property Management Ltd (managing agent)

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.