Decision summary

LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0218 — service charge decision

In LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0218, decided 1 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at Epirus Mansions, Epirus Road, London SW6 7UJ and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Epirus Mansions, Epirus Road, London SW6 7UJ
Decision date: 1 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Repairs & maintenance (2018)£1,080£1,080Allowed in full
Cleaning (2016)£730£730Allowed in full
Utilities (2016)£120£120Allowed in full
Other charges (2015)£9£9Allowed in full
Cleaning (2015)£480£480Allowed in full
Utilities (2015)£232£232Allowed in full
Other charges (2019)£450£450Allowed in full
Other charges (2018)£420£420Allowed in full
Other charges (2017)£815.40£815.40Allowed in full
Management fees (2016)£2,640£2,640Allowed in full
Management fees (2015)£2,495£2,495Allowed in full
Major works (2016)£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, Other grounds
Legal & professional costs (2021)£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, Other grounds

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The Tribunal finds the sum of £1,080 to be payable by the Applicants in the proportions in which they normally pay their service charge”
On repairs & maintenance
“Items 2016.5 (£730, cleaning) and 2016.6 (£120, electricity) were agreed by the Applicants and are therefore payable by them”
On cleaning
“Items 2016.5 (£730, cleaning) and 2016.6 (£120, electricity) were agreed by the Applicants and are therefore payable by them”
On utilities
“Items 2015.4 (sundries: £9) 2015.5 (cleaning: £480) and 2015.6 (Electricity: £232) were not challenged on the grounds of reasonableness”
On other charges
“Items 2015.4 (sundries: £9) 2015.5 (cleaning: £480) and 2015.6 (Electricity: £232) were not challenged on the grounds of reasonableness”
On cleaning
“Items 2015.4 (sundries: £9) 2015.5 (cleaning: £480) and 2015.6 (Electricity: £232) were not challenged on the grounds of reasonableness”
On utilities
“there appears to have been a general lack of supervision of the property by the Respondent freeholders and the standard and presentation of the accounting in relation to service charges has been very poor.”
Of Respondents (freeholder landlords)
“The major errors made by the Respondent in relation to the roof repairs alone justify the making of the application by the Applicants”
Of Respondents (re roof repair misallocation)

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.