LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0283 — service charge decision
In LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0283, decided 5 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Clandon Court, 69 Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, Kent BR1 4DJ and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Clandon Court, 69 Burnt Ash Lane, Bromley, Kent BR1 4DJ
Decision date: 5 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Acorn Estate Management / Eves Property Management Services.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £759.82 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2017-2022) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal deemed the 15% fees charged between 2016 and 2022 on the buildings' insurance premium was not payable and should be reimbursed to the Leaseholders”
“They are also due a total refund of £759.82, the sum charged by Eves Property Management for insurance services provided in year 2022.”
“It is for these reasons the Tribunal accepts the charges for the works were both payable and reasonable.”
“The application for a contribution to the costs of the supplementary supervision is rejected. There are no terms of engagement completed by the Residents Association for either of these assignments to which the fee accounts relate.”
“It was agreed by both parties that an independent accredited asbestos specialist should conduct an appropriate standard inspection of the property.”
“The Freeholder and more recently his agent have undertaken this role without any consultation with the leaseholders and made a supplementary charge for providing the service. This role falls beyond the relevant lease provisions and the charges are not payable.”
“the Mr Coates, the Freeholder failed on several occasions to engage with the Leaseholders in respect of disputed items, having argued that the matters should be determined by Tribunal.”
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.