Decision summary

LON/00AK/LSC/2023/0387 — service charge decision

In LON/00AK/LSC/2023/0387, decided 24 September 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flats 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 49, and 50 Boundary Court, Snells Park, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flats 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 49, and 50 Boundary Court, Snells Park, London
Decision date: 24 September 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Major works (2022-23)£2,105.74£1,263.44ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Repairs & maintenance (2020-21)£5,687.11£345.58ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work
Lifts (2021-22)£10,802.74£10,802.74Allowed in full—

Key passages (verbatim)

“we find that £1,263.44 is the amount payable in respect of each leasehold property… we consider there should be a 40% reduction to the service charges payable by the Applicants”
On major works
“we consider it was reasonable for the Respondent to incur the costs relating to some visits… the first four visits were reasonable… which costs amounted to £345.58”
On repairs & maintenance
“we consider that for 2021/2022 the reasonable costs for lift repairs was £10,802.74”
On lifts
“All of the Respondent's applications lacked merit, and it was surprising that a social landlord, represented by counsel, saw fit to make these applications.”
Of Respondent (London Borough of Enfield) — three strike-out/exclusion applications
“Mr Mehta's statement failed to deal with this. That is a serious failing given that Judge Carr's directions required the Respondent to show cause.”
Of Respondent witness — failure to address Judge Carr's directions
“Given the cost of renewing the roof, the Respondent's failure to make those enquiries cannot be justified.”
Of Respondent — failure to enquire about guarantee validity before engaging own maintenance contractors
“It is also unsatisfactory that the Respondent has not provided a copy of the guarantee when it seems to have been available as recently as June 2023 for the project team to inspect its terms and report back to Respondent's Home Ownership, Major Works, Rents & Service Charge team. This is compounded by the Respondent's witnesses being unable to provide evidence regarding the insurance.”
Of Respondent — failure to provide copy of guarantee and inadequate witness evidence on insurance

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.