Decision summary

LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0349 — service charge decision

In LON/00AG/LSC/2020/0349, decided 8 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Second Floor Flat 46 Belsize Road, London NW6 4TG and reached a mixed result: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Second Floor Flat 46 Belsize Road, London NW6 4TG
Decision date: 8 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Buildings insurance (2018-19)£3,988£3,988Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2019-20)£4,392£4,392Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2020-21)£4,612£4,612Allowed in full
Cleaning (2018-19)ReducedWorks not necessary
Cleaning (2019-20)ReducedWorks not necessary
Cleaning (2020-21)ReducedWorks not necessary
Other charges (2018-19)ReducedNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2019-20)ReducedNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2020-21)ReducedNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2018-19)Allowed in full
Other charges (2019-20)Allowed in full
Other charges (2020-21)Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2019-20)£153£0Disallowed entirelyWorks not necessary
Repairs & maintenance (2020-21)£300£0Disallowed entirelyWorks not necessary
Reserve fund contributions (2020-21)£1,250£900ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The cost of the insurance premium was reasonably incurred in each of the years under consideration.”
On buildings insurance
“The cost of the insurance premium was reasonably incurred in each of the years under consideration.”
On buildings insurance
“Once we have concluded that we cannot be satisfied that the alternative quotations constitute like for like cover...we do not consider we are in a position to conclude that the outcome premium is unreasonable.”
On buildings insurance
“The costs of the regular four-weekly cleaning of the common parts were reasonable incurred in each year. The costs of the bi-annual cleaning with a carpet cleaning machine were not reasonably incurred in each year.”
On cleaning
“The costs of the regular four-weekly cleaning of the common parts were reasonable incurred in each year. The costs of the bi-annual cleaning with a carpet cleaning machine were not reasonably incurred in each year.”
On cleaning
“The costs of the regular four-weekly cleaning of the common parts were reasonable incurred in each year. The costs of the bi-annual cleaning with a carpet cleaning machine were not reasonably incurred in each year.”
On cleaning
“the Respondent wrote to the Applicant on 23 August 2020 asserting that it would "apply to the court for 'possession judgement' on your flat". A property manager of Mr Gurvits' experience must have known that this was wholly misconceived.”
Of Eagerstates Ltd / (managing agent)
“We accept that the correspondence in the bundle tended to indicate that the Respondent had been less than helpful in the past in providing information about the insurance policies, and about the claims history.”
Of Assethold Limited / Eagerstates Ltd (respondent/managing agent)
“we note that the Tribunal had had to request a copy of the lease before the hearing as there was no copy in the bundle”
Of Respondent (failure to include lease in bundle)

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.