LON/00AN/LSC/2020/0053 — service charge decision
In LON/00AN/LSC/2020/0053, decided 3 February 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 2 Marzell House, 120 North End Road, West Kensington, London and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2 Marzell House, 120 North End Road, West Kensington, London
Decision date: 3 February 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: IDM Properties Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2016-2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal considered the Insurance premium to be reasonable, especially in the absence of an alternative quote based upon precisely the same criteria as the subject.”
“the Tribunal found the sums claimed for the years in dispute to carry out these functions to be reasonable.”
“Mr Fadrowski confirmed the annual Management Fee for the building is £3000 which equates to £200 per unit. The Tribunal found these costs to be more than reasonable especially given the location of the building and the relatively small number of units involved.”
“the Tribunal finds these costs to be reasonable in the years in question.”
“The cost incurred in each of the years was £360. These costs represented costs incurred and did not strike the Tribunal as being unusually high.”
“The cost of the lift maintenance is split between the leaseholders in the building based upon the percentages. This is confirmed in the decision in Solarbeta Management Co Ltd v Akindele (2014) UKUT 415 (LC).”
“Very little evidence of invoices were provided by the Respondents which did not assist the Applicant and the Tribunal had to rely on its expert knowledge.”
“it is evident to the Tribunal when it examined the papers in the bundle and questioned Mr Smith that the budgeted figures provided in advance of the service charge year bore little resemblance to the certified figures and this no doubt has caused the Applicant confusion and a lack of understanding in order to calculate the final figures set out in the demands.”
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.