LON/00AM/LSC/2024/0149 — service charge decision
In LON/00AM/LSC/2024/0149, decided 3 January 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at Flat 57 Riverside Apartments, Goodchild Road, London N4 2BA and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 57 Riverside Apartments, Goodchild Road, London N4 2BA
Decision date: 3 January 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall & Rittner (current); previously Premier Estates and Navana.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2018/19) | £293.08 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2022/23–2023/24) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2018/19–2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £464.38 | £448.90 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £626.96 | £553.81 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021/22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022/23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“They are obliged to pay their proportion of the costs of window cleaning, and it has been their choice to refuse to allow their own windows to be cleaned.”
“the Respondent has in our view done its reasonable best to counter that challenge”
“the Applicants were unable to show at the hearing that any of their arguments amounted to persuasive evidence that the general repairs service had been sub-standard or unreasonably expensive”
“the sums charged have been very modest, and the Applicants have failed to show that the sums charged are unreasonable”
“The Respondent has not dealt with the Applicants' challenge to the cost of the frese cartridge / frissor restrictor to the hot water inlet … charged £293.08 for a device that was removed because it did not work and was not replaced.”
“there is insufficient hard evidence before us to demonstrate that the service provided was a substandard one such that any of the specific charges should be reduced”
“The Applicants' written submissions (including what has wrongly been labelled as a 'skeleton' argument) are very long and detailed, but much of that detail is unhelpful or is focused on the wrong issues.”
“the manner in which their supporting documentation has been presented is contrary to the tribunal's written directions and was exceptionally unhelpful, and it was not realistic to expect either the tribunal or the Respondent to have gone through the extremely laborious process envisaged by the Applicants in order to access and absorb all of the detailed information that the Applicants believed to be relevant to their case.”
“Much time has been wasted by the tribunal in accessing information which then proved to be irrelevant, and there is a limit to what the tribunal is able to do with its finite resources.”
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.