LON/00AH/LSC/2023/0360 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2023/0360, decided 18 March 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at 47C Birdhurst Rise, South Croydon, London and reached a mixed result: 15 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 47C Birdhurst Rise, South Croydon, London
Decision date: 18 March 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £2,893.16 | £2,169.87 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £145.34 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £250 | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £1,128 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £672 | £325 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £396 | £180 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £600 | £250 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £396 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £396 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £134.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £792 | £660 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £240 | £120 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £432 | £166 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £1,458.33 | £1,093.75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Duplication of charges |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £330 | £0 | conceded | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal found that the amount charged for insurance should be for a nine month period and reduced the amount accordingly... the Tribunal determined that the service charge for the period 1 November 2021 to 31 July 2022 should be £2,169.87.”
“The Tribunal found that the estimated amount of £145.34 was excessive and therefore reduced the amount to take account of the nine-month period... the Tribunal found that £100.00 was a reasonable amount for this item.”
“The Tribunal found that a £250.00 excess was a reasonable amount for an insurance claim as a result of storm damage and therefore found that £250.00 was payable.”
“The Tribunal found that the amount charged for the survey was not reasonable. It was unclear what the extent of the damage to the gable end had been and the Tribunal was not provided with any detail as to the works that were completed.”
“The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to justify the £672.00 fee. The Tribunal therefore used its expert knowledge to reduce the amount payable to £325.00 for a survey fee following storm damage.”
“The Tribunal found that the cost of £396.00 was not reasonable. The detail as to the work completed was not clear and no invoice was provided.”
“Unfortunately, the Respondent did not complete the column for the landlord's comments.”
“the Respondent confirmed that he did not have a mechanism to check that the work was completed, and that he had received the invoice and paid it.”
“The Respondent confirmed that he had a large portfolio and did not know if this work was completed.”
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.