Decision summary

LON/00AJ/LSC/2023/0018 — service charge decision

In LON/00AJ/LSC/2023/0018, decided 25 October 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 42, 58 and 152 Haven Green Court, Haven Green, London W5 2UY and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 42, 58 and 152 Haven Green Court, Haven Green, London W5 2UY
Decision date: 25 October 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Lamberts Chartered Surveyors.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Management fees (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Staffing & concierge (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Staffing & concierge (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Cleaning (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Gardening & grounds (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Repairs & maintenance (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Buildings insurance (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Reserve fund contributions (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—
Other charges (2015-2023)——Allowed in full—

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The Tribunal is satisfied that Lamberts carry out work at least to the value of their fees.”
On management fees
“The Tribunal could not identify anything in the Applicants' complaints about Mr Lubbock which could affect the reasonableness of any service charges.”
On staffing & concierge
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the Porter carries out work befitting his status and salary.”
On staffing & concierge
“the Respondent has chosen a different compromise between cost and quality which they are entitled to do.”
On cleaning
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the cost of gardening is reasonable for the service delivered.”
On gardening & grounds
“The Tribunal cannot identify anything wrong with accounting for this expense from the Reserve Fund.”
On repairs & maintenance
“This is nonsense.”
Of Applicants (allegation that Lamberts charging separately for surveys was unethical or dishonest)
“The First Applicant has been a director of the Respondent since mid-2022 and, having been in a position to observe Mr Heneker's contributions for himself, has no excuse for making obviously false claims.”
Of First Applicant
“This is a silly approach. As a non-resident lessee, the First Applicant should not expect to see the Porter doing much at all on his few visits to the property as the likelihood is that, at any given time, the Porter would be engaged on tasks out of the First Applicant's sight.”
Of First Applicant (allegation that the Porter only cleared rubbish disposal chutes)
“These allegations exemplify the Applicants' tendency to assume not just the worst but serious criminal conduct when the problem is actually just their ignorance of the full facts.”
Of Applicants (money-laundering allegation against )

Related

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.