Decision summary

LON/00AH/LSC/2023/0050 — service charge decision

In LON/00AH/LSC/2023/0050, decided 17 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 3, 4, 8, 22, 26, 32, 33, 34 & 36 Calum Court, 34 High Street, Purley and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flats 1, 3, 4, 8, 22, 26, 32, 33, 34 & 36 Calum Court, 34 High Street, Purley
Decision date: 17 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: The Solutionists Ltd (prior); FS Design and Build Purley Ltd (latter part of year).

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2021-22)£1,600£1,600Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2021-22)£9,137.50£3,495.16ReducedNot payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Repairs & maintenance (2021-22)£584.52£120ReducedNot payable under the lease
Cleaning (2021-22)£1,147£700ReducedPoor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Lifts (2021-22)£145.66£109.34ReducedLandlord could not evidence the cost
Gardening & grounds (2021-22)£2,533.75£1,543.75ReducedDuplication of charges
Repairs & maintenance (2021-22)£974£824ReducedLandlord could not evidence the cost
Cleaning (2021-22)£570£570Allowed in full
Management fees (2021-22)£16,800£10,000ReducedFee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Other charges (2022-23)Allowed in fullLeaseholder evidence insufficient

Section 20C order: partial.

Key passages (verbatim)

“the tenant having conceded the basic reasonability of the amount claimed, which appears to the Tribunal to be within a reasonable range, the Tribunal finds that £1,600 is payable for the accountants' fees.”
On other charges
“the Tribunal found, doing the best it could with the information available to it, that any works of construction dated prior to the date of practical completion were not chargeable under the lease.”
On repairs & maintenance
“The Tribunal's decision in this matter was based on the same considerations as its decision under the previous head. As set out in paragraph 31 above, the Tribunal found that any construction works prior to the date of practical completion were not chargeable under the lease.”
On repairs & maintenance
“The applicants set out their dissatisfaction with the quality of the cleaning, with photographs in support. The Tribunal found that, on the evidence available to it, the cleaning had been of a poor quality.”
On cleaning
“The landlord could not find an invoice for a payment of £36.32, and therefore conceded that sum to arrive at a revised figure of £109.34.”
On lifts
“a number of these invoices relate either wholly or in part to 'inside cleaning'... Once these amounts are removed from the total, the landlord has in fact provided invoices for £1,543.75 of gardening costs.”
On gardening & grounds
“The respondent provided very little by way of reply to these points. Instead, other than an irrelevant reference to drains at the property (the invoices for which were not used in support of this heading, following clarification of this at the hearing), the respondent had simply responded that the invoices were provided, and they relied upon them.”
Of Respondent / landlord
“This is obviously an unusual position, and one regarding which the Tribunal was not provided any assistance by the respondent in terms of why they say the pre-practical completion costs they have provided for in the 2021-22 accounts are chargeable to the tenants. This is despite the applicant clearly raising this point in advance of the hearing, the Tribunal further raising this issue with the respondent at the hearing, inviting counsel to consider whether they had any submissions to make regarding it over the lunch break and specifically asking for those submissions at the end of the hearing.”
Of Respondent / landlord
“good property management is not waiting until leaseholders raise disputes with the Tribunal and then merely complying with directions. Property managers should seek to resolve issues promptly and effectively by providing assistance and information to their service charge payers.”
Of Respondent / managing agent
“the Tribunal felt that the comments in the Scott Schedule were an attempt to blame the applicants for the poor performance of the respondent's staff.”
Of Respondent / managing agent (Scott Schedule comments)

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.