LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0388 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0388, decided 27 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at The Studio Flat, 59A Ross Road, London SE25 6SB and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: The Studio Flat, 59A Ross Road, London SE25 6SB
Decision date: 27 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ringley Limited (RL).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £330 | £330 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | £88 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £176.40 | £176.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020-21) | £355 | £355 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £100 | £100 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £184 | £184 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £72 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Key passages (verbatim)
“In 2018/19 total expenditure on ground maintenance and repairs and maintenance was £1,832. This is £182 less than the repairs and maintenance budget for 2019/20 (£1,650). Given the expenditure in the previous year, the budget figure was entirely reasonable and is allowed in full.”
“The same cannot be said of the garden maintenance budget. This work is undertaken by the leaseholders, without charge. There was no specific garden maintenance expenditure in the 2018/19 accounts… The inclusion of this item was unreasonable, and it is disallowed in full.”
“The budget of £882 was in line with this figure and is reasonable. This item is allowed in full.”
“The fence and gate budget matches the quote obtained by Mr Cochrane and is also reasonable… The repairs and maintenance and fence and gate figures are allowed in full.”
“the respondent is entitled to set-off £100, being 80% of the cost, against his service charges.”
“the respondent is entitled to set-off £184, being 80% of the cost.”
“This has been a difficult case, due to the confusing presentation by both parties. The original claim form did not give a breakdown of the service charge arrears or identify the years covered by the claim. Confusingly, the applicant's statement of case from the County Court proceedings referred to heads of expenditure in the end of year accounts. The respondent mistakenly focused on this expenditure, rather than the service charge budgets, in his schedule. All this generated unnecessary work and extended the duration of the hearing. These problems have been compounded by the parties' approach to documents. The hearing bundle did not include the applicant's bundle from the County Court proceedings, the respondent's email of 25 March 2021 or the repair invoice for the lean-to roof, all of which were highly relevant. Only one of the repair invoices was appended to the respondent's statement of case and exhibit 'CW4' was missing. These omissions meant additional disclosure was required following the hearing and delayed the preparation of this decision.”
“The tribunal accepts the respondent was treated unfavourably in relation to these repair costs. The applicant should have reimbursed 80% of these costs, or applied credits to his service charge account, when presented with these invoices.”
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.