LON/00AH/LDC/2021/0124 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LDC/2021/0124, decided 16 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Vantage Point, 174 Sanderstead Road, South Croydon, Surrey, CR2 0LY and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Vantage Point, 174 Sanderstead Road, South Croydon, Surrey, CR2 0LY
Decision date: 16 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Martin and Co (Stahl Fernandes).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021) | £131,169.60 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £14,300 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £12,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021) | £3,555 | £2,844 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | £10,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“On 9th March 2021 the Landlord appointed on merit Read Building Solutions Ltd as the main contractor. RBSL contract price is £131,169.60p [net cost £109,308.00 plus VAT £21,861.16). RBSL provided the lowest quote of the three estimates.”
“KLF: £14,300 + VAT: £17,160”
“Croydon Council (suspension of 4 car parking bays for 10 weeks): £12,000”
“the Applicant is charging £3,555 for its costs in project management and administration fees. The Tribunal reduces this by 20% (£711) to reflect its failure to comply with its statutory duty to consult.”
“Contingency fee: £10,000.”
“The Applicant does not explain why a Stage 1 Notice of Intention was not served once the scope of the required works had been identified and before KLF went out to tender. This would have afforded the lessees the opportunity to comment on the scope of the proposed works and to nominate a contractor from whom an estimate should be sought.”
“The Applicant's hope that insurance might cover the cost of the works is not a sufficient excuse. If the insurance claim was being pursued for the benefit of the service charge payers, as opposed to the Applicant's interests as developer or landlord, there should have been greater transparency.”
“The Tribunal notes that L&Q have not made any representations in respect of the proposed works. L&Q will bear 40% of the cost of the works. Whilst they will be able to pass this on to their sub-lessees, this Tribunal would have expected L&Q to take a more proactive role in protecting its interest in the Building and also the interests of its sub-lessees.”
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.