LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0329 — service charge decision
In LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0329, decided 10 January 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at Flat 5 Ripon House, 254 Croydon Road, Beckenham BR3 4DA and reached a mixed result: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5 Ripon House, 254 Croydon Road, Beckenham BR3 4DA
Decision date: 10 January 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Bowden Property Investments Limited / LMD Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2013) | £200 | £128 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Legal & professional costs (2014) | £241.54 | £125.54 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2014) | £225 | £120 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2015) | £225 | £209 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2016) | £225 | £209 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2017) | £225 | £209 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2017) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Utilities (2018) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Utilities (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2018) | £225 | £209 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019) | £238.46 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Management fees (2020) | £305.08 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Major works (2016-2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“2013 - £72 which relates to management charges = £72”
“2014 - £116 which relates to profession fees and £16 which relates to management charges = £132”
“2014 - £116 which relates to profession fees and £16 which relates to management charges = £132”
“2015 - £16 which relates to management charges = £16”
“2016 - £16 which relates to management charges = £16”
“2017 - £3.33 – a concession by the respondent and £16 for management charges = £19.33”
“there was evidence that the Respondent was cavalier with his invoicing and his accounts and his attitude throughout the hearing appears to have been resentful and even angry that the Applicants are challenging the service charge.”
“It would be very useful in future if the Respondent accepted that the Applicants have a right to challenge charges and that there is an expectation that landlords behave professionally and provide clear explanations and clear accounts of how leaseholders' money is being spent.”
“it should also be noted that if the invoices had been dealt with in a transparent manner there would have been no need for the Applicants to do the works of aggregation.”
“it notes that the reason that this issue emerged is because of the haphazard way service charges for works have been levied. If there had been clarity, there would have been no need for the application. As it is clarity has only been achieved at a very late stage in the proceedings”
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.