LON/00AH/LSC/2019/0235/0018 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2019/0235/0018, decided 7 January 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flats 1–10, 18 Lancaster Road, SE25 4AJ and reached a mixed result: 13 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1–10, 18 Lancaster Road, SE25 4AJ
Decision date: 7 January 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2019) | £2,060.28 | £1,030.14 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2017-2018) | £452 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2017-2018) | £4,553.10 | £2,553.10 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2018-2019) | £823.73 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2018-2019) | £1,525.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-2019) | £720 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | £900 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2019-2020) | £1,700 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2020) | £750 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | £400 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2019) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2018) | — | £95 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2018) | £1,045 | £95 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal was not satisfied that the works were of a reasonable quality and were not satisfied that they have been carried out to a reasonable standard … the Tribunal considered that it was fair and proportionate and reasonable that the leaseholders pay 50% of the charge”
“no alternative quotes were disclosed to the Tribunal and as the landlord's insurance was with a reputable mainstream insurance company the Tribunal had no alternative other than to find that the insurance for this year and indeed all subsequent years are reasonable.”
“The Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant that no such cleaning had ever been carried out. The respondent simply indicated that an invoice having been produced the work must have been done. The Tribunal preferred the evidence from the applicant.”
“The Tribunal from its own knowledge of charges in the region for property of this kind thought that this amount was excessive. Therefore, reduced the charge in total by £2000 down to £2553.10”
“The applicant gave evidence that asserted that it only ever worked for just two of the flats in the property. In these circumstances the Tribunal considered it appropriate to disallow this service charge completely.”
“In the light of the evidence from the applicant that no cleaning had ever taken place this amount is disallowed completely as is the common parts cleaning charge of £1417.20.”
“it was apparent to the tribunal that there had been a long history of the applicant querying these charges with little or no response from the respondent.”
“the tribunal did take issue with elements of the conduct of the respondent and could see where the applicant was able to take issue with the conduct of the service charge accounting process in relation to these service charges.”
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.