LON/00AH/LSC/2020/0292 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2020/0292, 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: Craig Sheen Block Management Ltd / SDL Property Management.
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)
“Accordingly we make no order in respect of the £4,332.48, but this is without prejudice to any claim which the tenant may bring against persons other than the current respondent.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
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.