LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0289 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0289, decided 7 May 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 22 Bracknell Gate, Frognal Lane, London NW3 7EA and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 22 Bracknell Gate, Frognal Lane, London NW3 7EA
Decision date: 7 May 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Bawtrys Estate Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works | £331,019.70 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs | £14,052 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs | £12,438 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees | £6,620.39 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal agrees with the respondent that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that the estimated charges were unreasonable... No substantive evidence was provided as to reasonableness.”
“the tribunal agrees with the respondent that the works they carry out fall outside of the scope of the consultation because they do not relate to building works.”
“the works that the applicant complained of were not part of the QLTA but separate charges. These charges, as with Monalco and Carbunko charges fall outside of the requirement for statutory consultation as they do not relate to works to a building.”
“The applicant has argued that the amount charged by Bawtrys is not reasonable. He has however provided very little evidence in support of this.”
“The tribunal determines that applicant is not liable for service charges in respect of payments to the reserve funds demanded in previous years. This was agreed between the parties.”
“The evaluation of these additional documents has made the process more confused with the main areas of concern being that these two additional tenders have not been tendered on the same basis as the original tendering 9 contractors.”
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.