LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0012 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0012, decided 25 March 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Centre Point House, 15A St Giles High Street, London WC2H 8LW and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Centre Point House, 15A St Giles High Street, London WC2H 8LW
Decision date: 25 March 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML Hawksworth.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Management fees | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“No service charge or reserve fund is therefore recoverable from the lessees of those flats in respect of the Proposed Scheme, by virtue of paragraphs 8 and 10(2)(a) of schedule 8”
“If costs were incurred for the QLTA for a project manager to supervise the Proposed Scheme, those sums would in principle be recoverable by the Applicants from the leaseholders who hold flats in respect of which the leases are not 'qualifying leases'”
“we find that the façade at CPH is not in good and substantial repair and condition, has been inherently defective from the date it was completed, and its physical condition has deteriorated over time as a consequence.”
“in the application that has been made to us we have not been given the jurisdiction to decide whether the sums demanded for payment to the reserve fund are reasonable or proportionate.”
“paragraph 10(2)(a) - 'in respect of that thing and anything else'- is also therefore apt to describe the QLTA in respect of which the Applicants also seek a determination under section 27A(3) of the 1985 Act.”
“Rather surprisingly, without any obvious evidential foundation, that former expert appears to have asserted that Dr Harris was being "controlled by" BCLP, such that he was not neutral, and he required to see evidence that pre-dated Dr Harris's involvement [EvB 1529]. He posited, again without any obvious evidential foundation, that the problem with the façade was a lack of trickle ventilation.”
“The leaseholders' former expert continued to advocate (we use that word advisedly, as that was what he was indeed doing despite avowing otherwise) for a patch repair scheme”
“A 'ransom' sum is indeed an appropriate description of it.”
“We note that this is both Almacantar's and Mr Waite's first development with any significant element of residential occupation. That may well explain Mr Waite's firm misunderstanding that the Proposed Scheme could not be carried out without unanimous consent, about which he was adamant.”
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.