Decision summary

LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0384 — service charge decision

In LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0384, decided 21 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 1, Sanctuary Court, 65, Croydon Road, Penge, London and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 1, Sanctuary Court, 65, Croydon Road, Penge, London
Decision date: 21 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: ABC Estates.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Management fees (2018/19)Allowed in full
Reserve fund contributions (2018/19)£1,416£833ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Reserve fund contributions (2019/20)£1,416£833ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Reserve fund contributions (2020/21)£1,666£917ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2018/19)Allowed in full
Management fees (2018/19)Allowed in full
Buildings insuranceWithdrawn
UtilitiesWithdrawn
Legal & professional costsDisallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Administration chargesDisallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The start-up fee charged by the managing agents and referable to the service charge was payable and reasonably incurred.”
On management fees
“Reasonable demands of the Applicant would have been £833 in 2018/19 and 2019/20 and £917 in 2020/21.”
On reserve fund contributions
“Reasonable demands of the Applicant would have been £833 in 2018/19 and 2019/20 and £917 in 2020/21.”
On reserve fund contributions
“We accept that some uplift may be justified in the third year in recognition of building cost inflation, and so substitute for that year £5,500.”
On reserve fund contributions
“The service charge relating to the fee for the managing agents between 4 and 31 May 2018 is payable and reasonable in amount.”
On management fees
“The element of the service charge relating to VAT on the managing agent's fees is payable (and reasonable in amount).”
On management fees
“It was, no doubt, ill-advised and inappropriate of the managing agent to threaten the Applicant with the Land Registry fees (and far from obvious that the lease made provision for them to do so).”
Of ABC Estates (managing agent)
“The latter, surprisingly, declined to pass the bundle on to Brady.”
Of ABC Estates (managing agent)
“even if less clearly misleading than the passage referred to by the Upper Tribunal, the text provided by the Applicant is also capable of being misleading, which is unfortunate.”
Of HMRC VAT Notice 742

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.