LON/00AG/LBC/2022/0036 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LBC/2022/0036, decided 26 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Lower Ground Floor Flat, 28A Mornington Terrace, Camden, London NW1 7RS and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Lower Ground Floor Flat, 28A Mornington Terrace, Camden, London NW1 7RS
Decision date: 26 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“No breach as the Respondent has not 'done' anything or suffered anything to be 'done' which has resulted in anything set out in this clause”
“No breach as there is no act, neglect or default on the part of the Respondent resulting in such payments.”
“No breach as (a) it has not been proved on the balance of probabilities that the cracks in the building were caused by the roots of the lime tree and (b) such damage was not, in any event, caused by 'other parts of the building and from the foundations and roof thereof'.”
“No breach. The Applicant has not proved that the Respondent has failed to maintain the lime tree.”
“No breach. There is little or no evidence that the Respondent has failed to tend to the lime tree which is the only allegation.”
“The Applicant's representative revealed, somewhat surprisingly, that the Applicant was not seeking to forfeit the Respondent's lease. It had been the decision of the directors that it would be cheaper to make this application rather than seek legal advice as to whether the Respondent was liable to the Applicant for the insurance excess and higher premiums being sought.”
“It must be remembered that it is for the Applicant to prove (a) that the Respondent positively ignored advice and (b) that it properly assessed risk to the building to ensure that the insurers were aware of any particular risk of damage. It has proved neither, in this Tribunal's opinion.”
“The fact of the matter is that the lime tree was there, the risks were considered and yet the Applicant, who is responsible for keeping the building insured against all reasonably ascertained risks, decided not to take action before the crack appeared and, even then, seemed to be reluctant to remove the tree.”
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.