LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0075 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0075, decided 18 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 26 St Stephens Close, Avenue Road, London NW8 6DB and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 26 St Stephens Close, Avenue Road, London NW8 6DB
Decision date: 18 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall and Rittner.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £13,014.86 | £13,014.86 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022) | £180 | £3.96 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The service charges which are the subject of this transferred County Court claim, in the aggregate sum of £13,014.86, are payable in full.”
“we are satisfied on the basis of the information and evidence before us that the reserve fund contributions forming part of these disputed charges were reasonable in amount.”
“it is not appropriate to make any reduction to the level of management fees.”
“only £3.96 is payable (representing 2.2% of the total), and it is payable as a service charge rather than as an administration charge.”
“The Applicant has done its best to set out a detailed case in support of the various service charges claimed, but its task has been made harder by the Respondent's inability to set out a clear set of legitimate concerns accompanied by appropriate evidence.”
“whilst we are not wholly persuaded by the Applicant's explanation as to why it has not dealt with the problem more effectively to date, a failure to remove abandoned cars more quickly is not a sufficient basis for determining that the level of service charge is unreasonable, especially as again the Respondent has not articulated its case in sufficient detail for the Applicant to have had an opportunity to answer it fully.”
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.