LON/00AH/LUS/2022/0001 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LUS/2022/0001, decided 2 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 33 Normanton Road, South Croydon, Surrey CR2 7AE and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 33 Normanton Road, South Croydon, Surrey CR2 7AE
Decision date: 2 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: RTM Company (new regime).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £3,102.33 | £3,102.33 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £277.62 | £277.62 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £2,520.48 | £2,520.48 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £204 | £204 | conceded | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £480 | £480 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £84 | £84 | conceded | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £988.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £1,882.78 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £144 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £750 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £806.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The applicant very fairly accepted that the costs of six of the 12 items said to have been incurred by the respondent during October 2021 had in fact been incurred.”
“The applicant very fairly accepted that the costs of six of the 12 items said to have been incurred by the respondent during October 2021 had in fact been incurred.”
“The applicant very fairly accepted that the costs of six of the 12 items said to have been incurred by the respondent during October 2021 had in fact been incurred.”
“The applicant very fairly accepted that the costs of six of the 12 items said to have been incurred by the respondent during October 2021 had in fact been incurred.”
“The applicant very fairly accepted that the costs of six of the 12 items said to have been incurred by the respondent during October 2021 had in fact been incurred.”
“The applicant very fairly accepted that the costs of six of the 12 items said to have been incurred by the respondent during October 2021 had in fact been incurred.”
“The respondent wholly failed to comply with the directions. It did not serve a statement of case at all, or exchange any witness statements. Late on 28 October 2022, the working day before the hearing, it served a bundle of 130 pages. On the morning of the hearing further documents were served together with a skeleton argument from Mr Granby. The skeleton argument purported to include a considerable amount of evidence.”
“No witness statement was provided to explain why the documents were four months late. The delay was inexcusable and in an extempore judgment (which has been recorded) the tribunal held that the late evidence should not be admitted. This was despite the customary charm and attractive advocacy of Mr Granby.”
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.