LON/00AL/LSC/2020/0184 — service charge decision
In LON/00AL/LSC/2020/0184, decided 18 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at Blocks A-B Norman Road, Blocks C-G Tarves Way and the Old Pearson Block, New Haddo, Greenwich, London and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Blocks A-B Norman Road, Blocks C-G Tarves Way and the Old Pearson Block, New Haddo, Greenwich, London
Decision date: 18 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2020) | £162,700.20 | £162,700.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2021) | £279,076.01 | £279,076.01 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the costs of the waking watch for the period up until 30 August 2020 – a total sum of £162,700.20 – were reasonably incurred and will be payable by the Respondents in accordance with the service charge provisions in the leases if properly included in the year end final accounts and properly determined.”
“it would be reasonable for the Applicants to incur the cost of installing a new fire alarm system at an estimated cost of £279,076.01, the Applicants could properly include that cost in the budget for the 2021 service charge year, and a service charge would be payable by the Respondents in respect of that cost.”
“The Respondents have criticised some of the reasoning behind the decision to implement a waking watch – especially the evidence of Mr. Ryan who accepted that he himself did not make the decision and who in his witness statement made reference to a spate of fires in other properties and also suggested that a change was needed in the summer because the weather was getting hotter.”
“Whilst the initial notice may well have been capable of being improved upon, the Tribunal was satisfied that it met the necessary minimum requirements and so there had not been a failure to consult properly.”
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.