LON/00AH/LSC/2020/0084 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2020/0084, decided 12 January 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 52B Clyde Road, Croydon, Surrey and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 52B Clyde Road, Croydon, Surrey
Decision date: 12 January 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: SDL Property Management / Craig Sheen Block Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2016-17) | £4,332.48 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-20) | £20,000 | £20,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-21) | £20,000 | £20,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £540 | £540 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £540 | £540 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tenant's rights are solely against Almond Property Ltd, or possibly South East Property Management Ltd or Houston Lawrence. Insofar as the tenant seeks an adjustment of the service charge account for 2016-17, that is not a claim he can make against the current landlord.”
“In our judgment the payment of £20,000 on account is reasonable. The tenant owes his one third share in each of the 2019-20 and 2020-21 service charge years.”
“In our judgment the payment of £20,000 on account is reasonable. The tenant owes his one third share in each of the 2019-20 and 2020-21 service charge years.”
“The managing agents canvassed the market before instructing the current accountants. The tenant has adduced no evidence that a firm could have been instructed more cheaply.”
“Since we have rejected the challenge to the £20,000 this point therefore fails as well.”
“What is astonishing about this latter fund is that the balance brought forward from 2015-16 was £10,866. There was then an "adjustment by previous agent" writing down that figure by £8,820 so as to give the £2,046 figure.”
“There is, however, no evidence that the payments out totalling £8,820 were genuine payments to a supplier. There is no obvious expenditure in the service charge account which matches these payments.”
“we agree with the tenant's submission that the consultation which Mr Sheehan carried out was poor. In a small block such as this, it would not be onerous to invite views from all three tenants. It would be in accordance with RICS guidance.”
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.