LON/00AJ/LSC/2019/0085 — service charge decision
In LON/00AJ/LSC/2019/0085, decided 12 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flat 58, Trentham Court, Acton, London W3 6AD and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 58, Trentham Court, Acton, London W3 6AD
Decision date: 12 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Y&Y Management Ltd (previously Crabtree Property Management).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014, 2016, 2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2014) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-2017) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2017-18 (partial), 2018-19, 2019-20) | — | £3,674 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2014) | £336 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2019) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2013) | £840 | £420 | Reduced | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Neither the First Respondent nor the Tribunal could identify any double charging.”
“the Applicant provided no basis for questioning the reasonableness of this cost and did not put the issue to Mr Azoulay”
“the charges calculated by the Tribunal are higher than average for a development of this size but they are well within the range found in the market.”
“An underspend is more normally grounds for approbation than criticism.”
“Drain repairs: there is a drains repair contract which includes twice-yearly inspections and twice-yearly drain clearances.”
“the Applicant again appears to have misunderstood the difference between estimates and actual charges”
“it is also noteworthy that they did not send demands to the actual address at Flat 58 Trentham Court. The Applicant unwisely had no mail forwarding arrangements for that address but the First Respondent might have been on stronger legal ground if they had made use of the subject property.”
“While it is fine for abbreviated headings to be used to describe services and service charges, it would be better if the First Respondent could use accurate ones and it is understandable that the Applicant misunderstood the purpose of this item.”
“Somewhat unconvincingly, the Applicant said she did nothing in the years 2014-19 to enquire what was happening to her service charges and ground rent because she had no legal obligation to do so and due to her involvement as a witness in a child abuse case (which was entirely unevidenced).”
“the Applicant herself attempted to bully and harass the Tribunal and deliberately made many exchanges difficult, despite Judge Nicol's attempts to get her to do otherwise. The evidence of the county court transcript is that this behaviour is not limited to her reaction to Judge Nicol.”
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.