LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0369 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2023/0369, decided 22 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 6 Ladywell Court, 22 East Heath Road, London NW3 1AH and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6 Ladywell Court, 22 East Heath Road, London NW3 1AH
Decision date: 22 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Wayne and Silver (from 2021); previously Fifield Glyn (from 2018); previously Aston Rose.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017) | £427.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2018) | £7,579.78 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Major works (2018) | £5,807.96 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2020) | £2,585.01 | £2,585.01 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“No final accounts were produced to evidence this claim, nor was there any evidence to explain what charges were covered by this sum. In oral evidence Mr L Lawrence didn't know what the sum covered.”
“In the absence of the final audited accounts, relevant invoices, evidence of s.20 compliance, compliance with the requirement under the lease to correctly send demands to the respondent, or indeed provide the relevant demands in the appeal bundle, the Tribunal finds on balance that this service charge is not payable.”
“In the absence of evidence that the service charge had been correctly demanded, the Tribunal finds that £0 is payable by the respondent under this heading.”
“The Tribunal considers that the budgeted sum of £861.67 per quarter was not unreasonable particularly in light of the payment made by the respondent in the sum of £833.01 for the budgeted service charges.”
“It is difficult to understand why such documentation would not have been included in the bundle if it was in existence, and how the applicants could contemplate the Tribunal being able to assess reasonableness and payability without providing all the necessary documentation. When asked, Mr M Phillips said they did have the documents and didn't know they were not included.”
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.