LON/00AG/LSC/2022/0284 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2022/0284, decided 13 February 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 23C Bartholomew Road, London, NW5 2AH and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 23C Bartholomew Road, London, NW5 2AH
Decision date: 13 February 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: 23 Bartholomew Road (Freehold) Limited (operated by Stephanie Gwatkin).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2021/2022) | £630 | £308.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022/2023) | £630 | £308.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023/2024) | £630 | £308.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024/2025) | £630 | £308.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2025/2026) | £630 | £308.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Utilities (2021/2022) | £36.75 | £29.40 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Cleaning (2021/2022) | £72 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal does not consider it reasonable to use the cost of the previous works as a benchmark for the next works and finds that no reasonable landlord would in the circumstances do so. As a result, it determines that the figure of £10,500 should be reduced by £1,500 to £9,000.”
“The tribunal determines that the sum of £308.50 per annum is payable by the Applicant as a contribution by way of a reserve towards future redecoration expenditure in respect of the service charges for the years 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024, 2024/2025 and 2025/2026.”
“The tribunal determines that the sum of £308.50 per annum is payable by the Applicant as a contribution by way of a reserve towards future redecoration expenditure in respect of the service charges for the years 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024, 2024/2025 and 2025/2026.”
“The tribunal determines that the sum of £308.50 per annum is payable by the Applicant as a contribution by way of a reserve towards future redecoration expenditure in respect of the service charges for the years 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024, 2024/2025 and 2025/2026.”
“The tribunal determines that the sum of £308.50 per annum is payable by the Applicant as a contribution by way of a reserve towards future redecoration expenditure in respect of the service charges for the years 2021/2022, 2022/2023, 2023/2024, 2024/2025 and 2025/2026.”
“The total bill was £122.50. We have established above that the Applicant's proportion of costs is 24%. His share is therefore £29.40.”
“The tribunal finds that this invoice was in fact produced in August 2022 by Ms Gwatkin, who had prepared it in conjunction with the contractor, having received a letterhead from the principal of MX Decorators & Builders, Mr Markou.”
“It is clear from the evidence, both documentary and oral, that Ms Gwatkin was using the service charge to enhance her own position and that this was her primary motivation. She was using the landlord vehicle to extend her own ownership (both in terms of the basement and the rear garden) at the cost of the company and to use the other tenants to subsidise the building maintenance for her benefit. This is not the behaviour of a fair and reasonable landlord.”
“the charging for cleaning by a director without obtaining the agreement of the shareholders, on a self-certified basis and without consultation, is not appropriate in the view of the tribunal. It is not reasonable for a service to be provided or charged for (or indeed paid for) on this basis.”
“Whilst the Applicant did indeed send an email accepting a 30% apportionment, the tribunal finds that it was as a result of misrepresentation on the part of Ms Gwatkin, in relation to the extent of the extension of her flat and the resultant areas; this led the Applicant to accept an offer on incorrect and misleading grounds.”
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.