LON/00AL/LSC/2020/0091 — service charge decision
In LON/00AL/LSC/2020/0091, decided 22 February 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 and 2, 57 Lansdowne Lane, London SE7 8TN and found largely for the leaseholder: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 and 2, 57 Lansdowne Lane, London SE7 8TN
Decision date: 22 February 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: PB Construction.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016-2019) | £1,595.51 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-2019) | £1,464.30 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Gardening & grounds (2016-2019) | £433.90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Cleaning (2016-2019) | £433.90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Legal & professional costs (2016-2019) | £787.80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Management fees (2016-2019) | £1,672 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2016-2019) | £282.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-2019) | £850.41 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the respondent has failed to provide any evidence of the existence of an insurance policy, other than the demands for this item.”
“the tribunal found on balance that no works under this heading had been carried out. If the Tribunal is wrong on this point, no evidence of works having been carried out has been provided, and therefore the demand is not validly made, and has been served in breach of s20B of the 1985 Act.”
“the attempt to prune the tree as described in Mr Doran's witness statement was credible, and was not of a reasonable standard in breach of s.19(b) of the 1985 Act. In any event, the demands made are in breach of s.20B of the 1985 Act.”
“This is an item that could in principle have been recharged to the applicants to recompense the lessors under the terms of the lease, had they carried out their duties to a reasonable standard. The Tribunal found that they did not.”
“no accounts have ever been provided to the applicants. Therefore, it was impossible to assess whether or not this has been reasonably incurred”
“there is no evidence that there has been any management of the property, other than late demands. The applicants have requested information and documentation from the management company. The responses have been obstructive, unhelpful, and unprofessional.”
“The Tribunal were not impressed with the Respondents' response [58-60], which continued to evade the issue of provision of details of the insurance policy, as well as other information. Rather than providing the information requested, the respondents suggested that their solicitors would advocate forfeiture proceedings against the applicants [60].”
“The Tribunal found the applicants bundle helpful, and their oral evidence was consistent with their case. In contrast, Mr Williams was inconsistent and obstructive.”
“The Tribunal found that there had been a flagrant breach of all the directions aimed at the respondent, ordered on 29.10.2020. To compound this, the respondents had attempted to obstruct the course of justice by seeking to adjourn the hearing at the last moment for no valid reason, and to introduce late documentary evidence, which if admitted would have had the effect of having to adjourn the hearing.”
“He sought to introduce new evidence at every opportunity despite having been warned on every occasion that he was not permitted to do so because of the respondents' complete disregard for the rules, and non-compliance with directions. His question to the applicants as to whether they thought the manholes were on the upper floors of the building were unhelpful and obstructive. He was given every opportunity during the hearing to test the evidence constructively, but he failed to do so.”
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.