LON/00AF/LSC/2023/0294 — service charge decision
In LON/00AF/LSC/2023/0294, decided 11 November 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flats at 97 Martins Road, Bromley and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats at 97 Martins Road, Bromley
Decision date: 11 November 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £2 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £371.64 | £371.64 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-24) | £918.72 | £459.36 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | £0 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“for the service charge year 2022-3 the four Applicants were each charged the extremely modest sum of £2 apiece by way of service charges in respect of the element of buildings insurance... we find that this was (extremely) reasonable”
“the charges rendered, of £30.97 per month, or £371.64 per annum... are reasonable, and are therefore payable.”
“we consider that the demands made for contributions to the Sinking Fund for the year 2022-3 were reasonable”
“the reasonable amount...was one half of what was actually demanded during that period. ...the reasonable sums would thus be £76.56 / 2 = £38.28 per month, or £459.36 per annum.”
“we also conclude that the management fees charged by the Respondent for the year 2022-3 were reasonable, and were and are payable by the Applicants.”
“we determine that £5.74 of the monthly management charge, or £68.88 per annum, was unreasonably demanded and is not payable by the Applicants.”
“the Respondent failed to attend, as later explained due to some difficulty in internal communications.”
“We consider the lack of detail or particularisation of the Respondent's case on this issue to be regrettable. It is most opaque how the sums claimed by way of Sinking Fund contributions have been calculated, and as discussed above, there is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that the sums claimed have been the subject of consideration or review, particularly against the substantial capital balance that has accrued, on the one hand, and the absence of any programme of proposed works on the other.”
“the Tribunal takes the view that the Applicants could be expected to do little more, against the wholesale failure of the Respondent to disclose any of the underlying financial information.”
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.