LON/00AF/LSC/2020/0379 — service charge decision
In LON/00AF/LSC/2020/0379, decided 24 September 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 4 Camden Wood, 48 Yester Road, Chislehurst, BR7 5HR and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4 Camden Wood, 48 Yester Road, Chislehurst, BR7 5HR
Decision date: 24 September 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-20) | £215.13 | £215.13 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £2,750 | £2,750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | £0 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-20) | £924 | £924 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £227.76 | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the interim service charges of £215.13 which were demanded on 12 June and 13 August are payable and reasonable.”
“Only one policy was taken out to insure the Building in 2019/20. The invoice was settled by VFM Procurement on 2 March 2020. They paid for it from the Respondent's reserves. The Respondent was entitled to pass this on as a service charge expense for 2019/20. There is no element of double payment.”
“No charge appears in the final accounts for the year. It is thus not a service charge for which the Applicants have been charged.”
“Bells prepared Service Charge Accounts for three years. Their fee of £250 for each year (+ VAT) is not unreasonable.”
“the Respondent has failed to make any lawful demand for the balance of £227.76 which would otherwise be payable by the Applicants.”
“Audited service charge accounts for the years 2017/8, 2018/9 and 2019/20 were not obtained until 16 December 2020. It seems that audited accounts have not been obtained for 2016/7.”
“The evidence adduced by both sides was confused and not entirely satisfactory.”
“To appoint one unsatisfactory managing agent might be regarded as a misfortune; to appoint four over such a short period suggests that the fault rather lies elsewhere.”
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.