LON/00AM/LSC/2023/0471 — service charge decision
In LON/00AM/LSC/2023/0471, decided 15 July 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 115 Chardmore Road, London N16 6JB and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 115 Chardmore Road, London N16 6JB
Decision date: 15 July 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Home Ownership and Right to Buy Services, London Borough of Hackney.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £387.43 | £60 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £393.93 | £50 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | £60 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | £60 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent was not able to demonstrate that the charges were reasonable as it was not able to provide a cleaning schedule, a contract for the cleaning or any evidence to demonstrate that the cleaning had taken place”
“In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent that the charges for cleaning are reasonable the Tribunal determines that the Applicant's offer of what it considers to be a reasonable amount for the years in dispute is the amount that is payable.”
“In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent that the management charges in these circumstances are reasonable, the Tribunal accepts the offer of £60 per annum for management costs in the years in dispute as a reasonable offer.”
“In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent that the management charges in these circumstances are reasonable, the Tribunal accepts the offer of £60 per annum for management costs in the years in dispute as a reasonable offer.”
“The Respondent seems to think that the Applicant should just pay the charges as demanded without it having any accountability or transparency about the services it provides. No-one from the Respondent has visited the block since the application was made or made an effort to talk to the Applicant about her concerns. No-one seems concerned for instance that the Applicant and neighbours have themselves been cleaning the common parts.”
“The Tribunal notes that the witness for the Respondent had not read the lease.”
“The Tribunal also observes that the poor response of the Respondent to this application demonstrates very limited management provision. The Respondent has taken a very defensive approach saying there is insufficient evidence rather than taking the complaints and concerns of the Applicant seriously. It is difficult for the Tribunal to know whether the Respondent does anything in response to complaints from leaseholders based on what the Tribunal has read and heard at the hearing.”
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.