Decision summary

LON/00AN/LSC/2020/0060 — service charge decision

In LON/00AN/LSC/2020/0060, decided 19 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 6 Hazlitt House, 38 Hazlitt Road, London, W14 0LE and found largely for the landlord: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flat 6 Hazlitt House, 38 Hazlitt Road, London, W14 0LE
Decision date: 19 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Urang.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Administration charges (2015)£300£0Disallowed entirelyOther grounds
Other charges (2015)£350£142.24ReducedOther grounds
Repairs & maintenance (2015)£312.90£312.90Allowed in full
Other charges (2016)£350£350Allowed in full
Other charges (2015)£248.48£248.48conceded
Other charges (2017)£350£350Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2017)£480£480Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2018)£480£260ReducedOther grounds
Utilities (2018)£1,500£1,500Allowed in full

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“Mr Munday was unable to satisfy the tribunal that the £300 sum had been removed from the account. This sum should therefore be deducted from the outstanding sums due.”
On administration charges
“the sum that was due was £142.24 which comprised fire inspection and installing safety signage. Both were carried out by Urang cleaning and maintenance. This was a reasonable sum to incur in the Tribunal's opinion.”
On other charges
“This matter was not taken forward by the Applicants and it is in any event the Tribunal's determination that the sums claimed were reasonable.”
On repairs & maintenance
“The Tribunal agrees that this was not a qualifying long-term agreement and that the sum charged was in all the circumstances reasonable.”
On other charges
“At the hearing the Applicant conceded that these sums were due.”
On other charges
“The Tribunal considers that the sums were reasonable and reasonably incurred.”
On other charges
“Mr Munday was unable to satisfy the tribunal that the £300 sum had been removed from the account. This sum should therefore be deducted from the outstanding sums due.”
Of Joe Munday / Urang (respondent's representative)

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.