LON/00AG/LSC/2022/0331 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2022/0331, decided 5 December 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 5 Ainger Road, London NW3 3AR and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, 5 Ainger Road, London NW3 3AR
Decision date: 5 December 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rennie and Partners.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £1,200 | £800 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £1,500 | £800 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £850 | £850 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | £1,600 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-24) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2022-23) | £55,000 | £55,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we have looked at the annual estimated charge for the two years ending 31 March 2023 and 31 March 2024 in the above context and we consider them to be reasonable and therefore payable in full.”
“we have looked at the annual estimated charge for the two years ending 31 March 2023 and 31 March 2024 in the above context and we consider them to be reasonable and therefore payable in full.”
“a charge of £350 + VAT per unit is within the bounds of what is reasonable in all the circumstances. The actual management fee for the year ending 31 March 2022 and the estimated management fee for the two years ending 31 March 2023 and 31 March 2024 are therefore all payable in full.”
“a charge of £350 + VAT per unit is within the bounds of what is reasonable in all the circumstances.”
“a charge of £350 + VAT per unit is within the bounds of what is reasonable in all the circumstances.”
“there is evidence before us of market testing by the Respondent. It has used an insurance broker, and its evidence is that the broker obtained six different quotations and went with the lowest one.”
“This was a weak challenge from the beginning on the part of the Applicant as it does not feature in the Scott Schedule and as her statement of case contains only a vague reference to non-receipt of an initial section 20 notice in relation to unspecified major works.”
“In many respects the Applicant's application was quite a weak one, and there is some evidence to support the proposition that she lodged the application without first trying to engage with the Respondent in a more measured way, for example by attending annual general meetings of the Respondent company to put across her views before resorting to litigation.”
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.