LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0217 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0217, decided 6 June 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flat 25 Palace Court, 250 Finchley Road, London NW3 6DN and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 25 Palace Court, 250 Finchley Road, London NW3 6DN
Decision date: 6 June 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ms D Fisher.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Lifts (2019) | £139.20 | £100 | conceded | No Section 20 consultation |
| Lifts (2020) | £221.90 | £100 | conceded | No Section 20 consultation |
| Lifts (2021) | £149 | £100 | conceded | No Section 20 consultation |
| Lifts (2022) | £155.80 | £100 | conceded | No Section 20 consultation |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £226 | — | conceded | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £549 | — | conceded | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £62 | — | conceded | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £1,897 | £964 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £6,416 | £3,027.66 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £10,085.63 | £7,790.53 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £4,500 | £472 | conceded | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the surpluses for each year should be credited back to the service charge account … 2019: £29,502 Applicant's share £1,799.62”
“2020: £8,744 Applicant's share £533.38”
“2021: £10,559 Applicant's share £644.10”
“2022: £17,125 Applicant's share £1,044.62”
“the respondent is limited to collecting £100 per year as opposed to £139.20 (2019) … Ms Fisher … confirmed that the respondent was willing to concede on this point”
“£221.90 (2020) … Ms Fisher … confirmed that the respondent was willing to concede on this point”
“Ms Fisher was unable to explain why there were no invoices available for 2022.”
“No explanation has been provided as to the costs of which equipment or materials the additional monies were to cover. It is unreasonable to add additional amounts which are indeterminate prior to the budget setting.”
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.