Decision summary

LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0170 — service charge decision

In LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0170, decided 6 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flats 2 and 3 Brunswick Mansions, Handel Street, London WC1N 1PE and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flats 2 and 3 Brunswick Mansions, Handel Street, London WC1N 1PE
Decision date: 6 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Parkgate Aspen Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Buildings insurance (2015)£8,997£8,997Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2016)£10,359£10,359Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2017)£10,995£10,995Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2018)£11,982£11,982Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2019)£15,306£12,000ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Buildings insurance (2020)£26,223£12,000ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Management fees (2019)£8,682£6,000ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Management fees (2020)£7,423£6,000ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Other charges (2017)£1,495£1,495Allowed in full
Other charges (2018)£1,552£1,552Allowed in full
Other charges (2019)£1,600£1,600Allowed in full
Other charges (2020)£1,629£1,629Allowed in full

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“we are not satisfied on the evidence before us that the insurance premiums passed on in the service charges for the years from 2015 to 2018 inclusive were unreasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“we are not satisfied on the evidence before us that the insurance premiums passed on in the service charges for the years from 2015 to 2018 inclusive were unreasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“we are not satisfied on the evidence before us that the insurance premiums passed on in the service charges for the years from 2015 to 2018 inclusive were unreasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“We paused before concluding that the last of those, just under £12,000 in 2018, was reasonably incurred, but concluded on balance that it was.”
On buildings insurance
“we conclude that those for 2019 and 2020 were unreasonable, and should be limited to £12,000.”
On buildings insurance
“we conclude that those for 2019 and 2020 were unreasonable, and should be limited to £12,000.”
On buildings insurance
“It was nonetheless surprising that there was no contract between Parkgate and the Management Company. Similarly surprising was Mr Unsdorfer's approach to the question. He appeared to think it was inappropriate for there to be a written contract, because he controlled both companies. He also considered there was no oral contract, because it would amount to 'me talking to myself'.”
Of Parkgate Aspen Ltd (managing agent)
“the positive evidence that the Reich Group quotation was made under delegated authority is thin. It relies on the report by Ms Berlin of an oral statement by someone at St Giles. We do not know upon what basis that statement was made, but all that has been suggested is the use of the title 'DA Scheme' in the quotation letter from Reich.”
Of Respondent's insurance evidence ( / St Giles delegated authority argument)
“it is wholly implausible that it would do so to the extent required for this to be an explanation of the difference between the figures provided to us for the end of the period – £26,223 and £8,106.”
Of Respondent's 'loss leader' insurance argument

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.