LON/00AH/LSC/2023/0325 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2023/0325, decided 26 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Vita Apartments, 1 Caithness Walk, Croydon and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Vita Apartments, 1 Caithness Walk, Croydon
Decision date: 26 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-2023) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal accepts the Respondent's evidence that where necessary, claims on insurance are made. The tribunal accepts that as claims are not often settled until after the cost of the work has been incurred these costs appear on the service charge accounts and are later reversed when payment is received from the insurance company.”
“The tribunal finds the Respondent's purchase of a long ladder (since stolen and not replaced) to keep on site for the use of contractors to be reasonable. Similarly, the tribunal finds the Respondent's reimbursement of heaters purchased by or on behalf of tenants when left without heating, is reasonable.”
“The tribunal finds it reasonable for the Respondent to have engaged a cleaning company to safely clean an area in the subject property that became bloodstained after an apparent suicide. The tribunal does not accept the Applicants' suggestion that the cleaning should have been carried out by the caretaker.”
“The tribunal finds no charges are made in respect of the 'gym' which is no longer in use and there are no running costs in respect of it.”
“as Mr Major in Application LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0167 conceded the landlord's water charges were payable in full, the tribunal in this application does not go behind that decision.”
“the tribunal considers the 20% deduction (plus VAT) determined by the tribunal in LON/00AH/LSC/2021/0167 also applied to the managing agent's fees charged in the estimated service charge year 2021 to 2022. Therefore, the tribunal declines to make any further deduction in respect of this item.”
“the tribunal finds the service charge accounts lack clarity and that explanations for charges that appear to have been wrongly added to the Applicants' service charge account e.g. legal fees and costs claimable from insurance claims, have not been readily forthcoming and has led to a significant degree of confusion among the Applicants.”
“the tribunal also finds the lack of clarity about when a water meter is to be installed, is an example of poor management and an issue that should be resolved as soon as possible.”
“Despite the tribunal's clear instruction as to what it could and could not be determined in this application, the Applicants sought to persist with the entirety of their application as set out in the paragraphs above and effectively sought the tribunal's forensic examination of the invoices and accounts produced by the Respondent.”
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.