LON/00AF/LBC/2021/0034 — service charge decision
In LON/00AF/LBC/2021/0034, decided 9 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 29A Windsor Drive, Orpington, Kent BR6 6EZ and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 29A Windsor Drive, Orpington, Kent BR6 6EZ
Decision date: 9 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondents have failed to keep in repair the surface of the flat roof area outside the rear entrance to the Property”
“the Applicant was unable to identify any specific alteration of any kind. In our judgment, this allegation must fail for lack of any evidence to support it.”
“His allegation that the Respondents' breach of repair covenant (or other alleged breaches) had an impact on his insurance premium or policy is purely speculative.”
“None of this evidence came anywhere near establishing on the balance of probabilities that the Respondents had sublet or attempted to sublet part of the Premises in breach of the Lease.”
“In the same written submissions, the Applicant withdrew the allegation that the Respondents had breached clause 4.3.1.9.”
“There is therefore insufficient evidence to establish that the water which entered the ground floor of the Building resulted from wastage or overflow from the Respondents' Property”
“His allegation that the Respondents' breach 0f repair covenant (or other alleged breaches) had an impact on his insurance premium or policy is purely speculative. The Applicant could not provide any evidence for that assertion. It was no more than simply his assertion.”
“The Applicant's only evidence of this was that some of the neighbours had told him. The Applicant did not or could not name these neighbours and none of them came forward to give evidence. We cannot and do not give any weight to that evidence.”
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.