LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0137 — service charge decision
In LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0137, decided 15 September 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 58 Perham Road, London W14 9SS and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, 58 Perham Road, London W14 9SS
Decision date: 15 September 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Wilmott Property Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2014-2021) | — | — | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021) | £600 | — | conceded | Duplication of charges |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Willmotts agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to make a credit to the service charge account. This was agreed. This credit was subsequently increased to £250. The electricity charges are therefore no longer a live issue.”
“The Applicant complains of two matters: (i) the decision to transfer the sum of £85.62 to the reserve fund; and (ii) the decision to retain a reserve fund of £835.62 (of which £750 was historic).”
“The Applicants again complains of two matters: (i) the decision to transfer the sum of £1,069.40 to the reserve fund; and (ii) the decision to retain a reserve fund of £1,905.02 (of which £835.62 was historic).”
“The Applicants again complains of two matters: (i) the decision to transfer the sum of £912.10 to the reserve fund; and (ii) the decision to retain a reserve fund of £2,817.12 (of which £1,905.02 was historic).”
“The Applicant's 22% share of the surplus is £330.26... On 16 July, the Respondent credited a further sum of £330.26 which was the surplus from 2020.”
“The budget for 2021 is at 2.16. This included a £2,000 contribution towards the reserve fund. Having accepted that they could not maintain a reserve fund, Willmotts issued a revised budget (at 5.37) which excludes the reserve fund contribution.”
“For a number of years, the Respondent acted under the mistaken belief that it was entitled to maintain a reserve fund.”
“Had the Applicant raised her concerns, this might have reduced the issues that the Tribunal is now required to determine.”
“It is not the role of this Tribunal to micromanage how Willmotts manage this Building. The 1985 Act restricts our jurisdiction to determine the payability and reasonableness of any service charges which have been demanded.”
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.