LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0333 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0333, decided 22 June 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 34b Broad Green Avenue, Croydon and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 34b Broad Green Avenue, Croydon
Decision date: 22 June 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2014-2021) | £8,682.31 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Management fees (2014-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Major works (2014-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The demands made in the period 6/2014 – 29/10/2020 for payment of service charges and insurance payments did not comply with s.21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and were therefore invalid and not payable by the respondent.”
“no managing agent was appointed by the deceased or current freeholder and that no managing agents' fees are reasonable or payable.”
“no consultation under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 took place and therefore, any sums for major works over £250 per leaseholder is not payable unless dispensation for consultation is granted by the tribunal.”
“I find that the defendant has made no significant attempt to mitigate her losses at an early date by taking the court action that was previously threated in order gain access to the roof area and have the necessary repairs carried although she has the continuous benefit of her husband's professional experience., I find that for reasons that were not fully explained, the lessee was content to let her husband manage the Flat who repeatedly claimed he that was too busy to deal with this matter. Consequently, the defendant allowed the Flat to remain unoccupied from 2014 to date.”
“The tribunal finds that neither party had given any proper consideration as to whether the claimant was the correctly named party, both to the claim and as the defendant to the counterclaim, for the whole of the period in dispute.”
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.