LON/00AN/LBC/2024/0027 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AN/LBC/2024/0027 & others, decided 5 December 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at First Floor Flat, 30 North End Crescent, London W14 8TD and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: First Floor Flat, 30 North End Crescent, London W14 8TD
Decision date: 5 December 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2022-23) | £1,609.01 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid, Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | £8,412.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2011-12) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
Key passages (verbatim)
“there has been no actual demand for this sum, let alone one that has been accompanied by the necessary summary of tenants' rights and obligations”
“in discussion at the hearing with the Applicant's witnesses and with Counsel for the Applicant, it was accepted by the Applicant that there was nothing in the hearing bundle which demonstrated how the figures themselves had been arrived at”
“The Applicant has failed to make a 'prima facie' case to show that the charges are reasonable and payable in practice, as it has provided no information other than the total amount charged in each year.”
“The Applicant has also been unable to produce evidence to show that the service charge was ever demanded, or even if it was demanded that it was demanded validly.”
“despite being required to do so by the tribunal's directions, the Applicant has not filed a statement of case in relation to any of the applications. It has provided witness statements, but these are very limited in their scope and do not set out any actual statement of case. The Applicant's case is therefore limited to the brief comments contained in the application forms.”
“in discussion at the hearing with the Applicant's witnesses and with Counsel for the Applicant, it was accepted by the Applicant that there was nothing in the hearing bundle which demonstrated how the figures themselves had been arrived at. There is a generalised schedule of costs and a list of some of the items needing repair but no other details, let alone any proper costings.”
“Ms McMillan accepted that there were no copy service charge demands in the hearing bundle. She said that it was the Applicant's general practice to serve service charge demands, but she was unable to confirm that service charge demands had actually been served on the Respondent in respect of these specific charges (or, even if they were, that those demands were valid ones). She also accepted that there were no breakdowns of the service charge amounts in the hearing bundle.”
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.