LON/00AL/LSC/2024/0226 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AL/LSC/2024/0226 & others, decided 30 January 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 157 Victoria Way, London, SE7 7NZ and reached a mixed result: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 157 Victoria Way, London, SE7 7NZ
Decision date: 30 January 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Helen Matthews (director of Tilechief Limited).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2022/23 and 2023/24) | £49,362.84 | £39,490.27 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary, Poor standard of work |
| Major works (2022/23 and 2023/24) | £3,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2022/23 and 2023/24) | £633 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022/23 and 2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022/23 and 2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022/23 and 2023/24) | £1,259.19 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2022/23) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2024/25) | £1,572 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2024/25) | £330 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2024/25) | £3,840 | £1,400 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022/23 and 2023/24) | £5,250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2024/25) | £15,700 | £15,700 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We make a reduction of 20% (£9,872.57), because we are satisfied that some additional cost was incurred because the original slate was removed.”
“We disallow P686 (£3,000) as this scaffolding was only kept in place because of the negligent work executed by MJSR.”
“We disallow P695 (£633) as this was only required because MJSR had failed to apply for building control approval.”
“The Tribunal accepts this explanation and accepts that the sums demanded, whilst high, are reasonable for the reasons stated.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums charged have been reasonable and are payable.”
“We do not accept Ms Matthews' explanation that she requires a separate computer for the management of the Property. We disallow this charge of £1,259.19.”
“Ms Matthews should not have authorised this. The roof was not strong enough to support tiles. Tiles were not appropriate for this property of local architectural and historic importance. Greenwich Building Control would not have approved this work, had the appropriate consents been sought.”
“we are not satisfied that the two quotes were on a like-for-like basis; (c) we are surprised that an estimate was obtained from D Long before the Stage 1 Notice of Intention was served.”
“She has sought to keep the service charges to a minimum by managing the Property herself. However, she has not had the skills to do so. After the problems with MJSR, she should have appointed a surveyor to draw up a schedule of works, seek estimates from competent builders and supervise the works.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that these applications have only been necessary because of the negligent work executed by MJSR. Ms Matthews should not have appointed MJSR. She should rather have tested the market and appointed a competent builder.”
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.