LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0386 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0386, decided 1 December 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-6, 47 Westow Street, London SE19 3RW and found largely for the landlord: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-6, 47 Westow Street, London SE19 3RW
Decision date: 1 December 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Stock Page Stock (SPS).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | £1,460 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | £537 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018) | £2,240 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £35 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £96 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £150 | £0 | conceded | Duplication of charges |
| Cleaning (2018) | £672 | £672 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | £2,700 | £2,700 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | £2,754 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020) | £2,808 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | £3,333.60 | £3,333.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £462 | £462 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £474 | £474 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent had no choice but to do the work as it was necessary for essential fire safety.”
“The Applicants said nothing about this item during the hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal has no basis on which it can determine that the charge is unreasonable or not payable.”
“A landlord is not obliged to go for the cheapest option. The contractor had to source the doors himself. There is no suggestion that his work was inadequate.”
“Neither the Applicants nor SPS could locate such a dummy camera, suggesting it might not have been installed or that the residents have not received the benefit of one.”
“Mr Fowler could not explain why the noticeboard, of which there is only one, was referenced in two invoices and he conceded that a Kaya Construction invoice dated 19th April 2018 for £96 should be credited back to the service charge account.”
“He could not justify why new locks had been installed so recently after the previous installation. The cost of the second installation is not reasonable and must be deducted from the service charge expenditure.”
“An increase in service charges is, in the absence of any other factors, as likely to be because previous charges were too low, perhaps due to deficiencies in the services, rather than because the later ones were too high. The Applicants seemed to start from the latter position and the former possibility never seemed to occur to them.”
“The Applicants particularly objected to SPS inviting them to take their complaints to this Tribunal for a definitive ruling rather than sorting them out to the Applicants' satisfaction. However, that is no justification for some of the language used. For example, at various times the Applicants accused SPS of "extortion", "fabrication", "profiteering", negligence and deliberately providing false information.”
“The Applicants alleged in paragraph 4.5.2 of their Statement of Case that "This is complete fabrication and slander." This is a good example of the Applicants' poor use of language. This is a serious charge against a professional organisation but they did not have anything to back it up other than pure speculation.”
“It is typical of the Applicants that they refused to believe SPS when told this, despite having no reason to think they were not telling the truth.”
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.