LON/00AG/LAM/2020/0028 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LAM/2020/0028, decided 21 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Melrose Apartments, 6 Winchester Road, London, NW3 3NT and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Melrose Apartments, 6 Winchester Road, London, NW3 3NT
Decision date: 21 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Michael Maunder Taylor.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016-2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | £38,130.29 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs | £36,660 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal considers it is a useful and common sense variation and it is not opposed by the Respondent.”
“The proposed variation clarifies the powers of the Manager in relation to insurance which in the light of the relationship between the parties is a necessary clarification.”
“The Tribunal accepts the argument of the Respondent in relation to its power to make Orders that relate to debts preceding the commencement of the Order.”
“it is premature to make an order in the terms sought and that the Applicant should seek to collect the service charges from Huggle that it considers it is owed.”
“The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that it has no jurisdiction to make orders relating to periods prior to the making of the Management Order. It also considers that it would be premature to make an Order before there is clarity on Origin's liability.”
“The Tribunal is concerned that the powers of the Manager must be reasonable and proportionate to the issues in hand and agrees with the Respondent that the powers without the proposed deletions are too wide.”
“Despite the lease placing these obligations on Origin the Respondent instructed work to be done to the exterior of those blocks which was in relation to cladding. The work resulted in charges totalling £36,660. The Respondent has not paid those invoices.”
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.