LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0140 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0140, decided 26 November 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-6 Char Apartments, 14 Mitchley Avenue, Purley, CR8 1DT and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-6 Char Apartments, 14 Mitchley Avenue, Purley, CR8 1DT
Decision date: 26 November 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Urang Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £350 | £108 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023) | £474 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2023) | £660 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2023) | £567 | £534 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | £1,166.40 | £505.44 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £510 | £510 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £1,800 | £1,440 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2023) | £50 | £50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £72 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2023) | £60 | £534 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £0 | £108 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We not consider that cleaning a detector and resetting a fire alarm panel could reasonably have taken two hours... we consider only one hour is reasonable. The reasonable sum is therefore £108.”
“£474 had been charged in the interim service charge. There was no actual expenditure. See below under "health and safety assessments" for the real position in relation to a fire risk assessment.”
“£660 had been charged in the interim service charge. There was no actual expenditure.”
“we consider that £95 (before VAT) for an hour's visit is not within the normal reasonable range. We would put the maximum reasonable one hour visit fee at £65... £445 would be the reasonable charge.”
“£180 had been charged in the interim service charge. There was no actual expenditure.”
“The reasonable charge under the heading garden and grounds maintenance is £505.44 (including VAT).”
“the on-boarding process, which appears to have lasted from May 2022 until about June 2023, is wholly unjustifiably long. The Applicants were not charged with Urang's fees for that long, but they were charged for a full calendar year. It cannot be reasonable for leaseholders to be liable for managing agents fees for such a long on-boarding process, before any leaseholder-facing management tasks at all were performed, in the absence of very compelling reasons. Mr Roberts was unable to give us any reason for the length of the process in this case.”
“in respect of some items, the rationale for the charges only became clear with Mr Roberts' explanations, and in some of those, he accepted that the presentation of both the interim service charge demands and the outturn figures were confusingly presented.”
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.