LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0272 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0272, decided 16 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 41A Chester Road, London N19 5DF and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 41A Chester Road, London N19 5DF
Decision date: 16 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: London Borough of Camden.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016-2017) | £18,143.18 | £10,501.28 | Reduced | Works not necessary, Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the repairs and maintenance charges of £250 per annum were no longer in issue for 2017-2020”
“The Tribunal considers these cost to be reasonable and payable for each of the years claimed.”
“These were charged for 2018 - 19 and are considered to be reasonable and payable.”
“The FTT therefore adjusts Ms Disney's Total Final Contribution of £18,092.57 by a reduction of £7,591.29 (total share of window works £8,059.13 net of £467.84 for her share of the communal window). Accordingly, having amended her apportionment the Applicant is liable for £10,501.28 for the Major Works.”
“This is putting a positive gloss on a poor situation in the Tribunal's view. The Respondents had failed to comply with their duties as landlords for a period of 14 or so years.”
“This is indicative of the Respondent's attitude towards the Applicant. There is no consideration of the Applicant's case and the fact that she was asserting that the Respondents had ignored her interests and replaced her windows when they did not need replacing. This, in itself could be construed as bullying or overbearing behaviour. The failure to even accept that this was a possibility reflects a robust and inflexible attitude on the part of the Respondents which prevails throughout this case.”
“The way in which the Respondents conducted themselves over the major works was in the Tribunal's opinion below the standard one would expect from a local authority which has some experience of dealing with leasehold management.”
“The Court of Appeal decision in Williams and others v Aviva Investors Ground Rent Ltd and another [2021]1WLR 2061 was not cited to the Tribunal by the Respondent's counsel. This is surprising as it was patently relevant to the decision at hand.”
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.