LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0180 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0180, decided 6 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Ground Floor Flat 50 Parchmore Road, Thornton Heath and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ground Floor Flat 50 Parchmore Road, Thornton Heath
Decision date: 6 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Trust Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2019-2020) | £150.38 | £117 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2019-2020) | £1,362.93 | £1,362.93 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-2020) | £569.50 | £183 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The billing information is incomplete and incoherent. In general the monthly charge is £13 for the period in question although it appears to have doubled in August 2020 for no explicable reason.”
“The tribunal understands the concern of the respondent. However the particular circumstances of the subsidence claim suggest that the quote is reasonable. The tribunal was impressed by the evidence of Mr Amos and the efforts he had made to demonstrate the reasonableness of the premium.”
“The tribunal considers that the managing agents provided minimal services for the property... the level of service provided by the managing agents has been so minimal over this period that it considers that the previous tribunal determination sets an appropriate level for fees, albeit with a small uplift for inflation.”
“To the surprise of the tribunal there were no electricity bills provided in the hearing bundle. Six bills were provided late in the hearing.”
“Mr Davda was unable to explain why the managing agents had not provided meter readings to the electricity supplier.”
“Mr Davda did not appear to understand the responsibilities in that regard under the lease.”
“It has been particularly concerned by the failure of the applicant to help the respondent avoid paying £1200 for the removal of trees that are either the freeholder or the other leaseholder's responsibility.”
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.