Decision summary

LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0390 — service charge decision

In LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0390, decided 22 December 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 55 Penge Road, London SE25 4EJ and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 55 Penge Road, London SE25 4EJ
Decision date: 22 December 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2016/17)£15,460.53£15,460.53Allowed in full
Other charges (2017/18)£5,071.85£5,071.85Allowed in full
Other charges (2018/19)£8,233.44£8,233.44Allowed in full
Other charges (2019/20)£26,162.55£26,162.55Allowed in full
Other charges (2020/21)£9,748.50£9,748.50Allowed in full
Other charges (2021/22)£10,984.43£10,984.43Allowed in full

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The disputed service charges to which these applications relate, namely the actual service charges for the years 2016/17 to 2020/21 inclusive and the budgeted service charges for the year 2021/22, are all fully payable”
On other charges
“The disputed service charges to which these applications relate, namely the actual service charges for the years 2016/17 to 2020/21 inclusive and the budgeted service charges for the year 2021/22, are all fully payable”
On other charges
“The disputed service charges to which these applications relate, namely the actual service charges for the years 2016/17 to 2020/21 inclusive and the budgeted service charges for the year 2021/22, are all fully payable”
On other charges
“The disputed service charges to which these applications relate, namely the actual service charges for the years 2016/17 to 2020/21 inclusive and the budgeted service charges for the year 2021/22, are all fully payable”
On other charges
“The disputed service charges to which these applications relate, namely the actual service charges for the years 2016/17 to 2020/21 inclusive and the budgeted service charges for the year 2021/22, are all fully payable”
On other charges
“the budgeted service charges for the year 2021/22, are all fully payable, albeit that the second six-monthly payment for 2021/22 is not due until 25 December 2022”
On other charges
“The First Applicant and the Second Applicant have provided no statement of case and have not completed any Scott Schedule. Their skeleton argument, provided at the last moment, bears very little relationship to their application which on its face looks like a standard challenge to particular service charges but without any detail that might alert the reader to the basis or bases of the challenge. Points were also raised at the hearing for the first time. The skeleton argument itself was in parts not very clear, and the separate bundles of copy documents contained nothing to explain what relationship those documents had to the points that were in issue. This would be deeply unsatisfactory even if the First Applicant and the Second Applicant were litigants in person, but remarkably the First Applicant and the Second Applicant were represented by a solicitor, albeit a non-practising one.”
Of (applicants' representative) and First/Second Applicants
“her statement of case is unfortunately very poorly argued and relies too much on unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and illegality – including against judges involved with this case or other proceedings between the parties – and on selective quotations from statutory provisions which do not support the points she wishes to make.”
Of Third Applicant
“it is not for the tribunal to attempt to construct her case for her.”
Of (re Takhar argument)
“It is conceivable that the Applicants might have had a case for the reduction of the service charges, perhaps in connection with disrepair or management issues or perhaps in relation to other issues, but there is no realistic chance of the tribunal finding in their favour in the absence of a properly argued case.”
Of All Applicants

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.