LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0302 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AN/LSC/2021/0302 & others, decided 20 January 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 39A–41 Goldhawk Road, London W12 8QP and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 39A–41 Goldhawk Road, London W12 8QP
Decision date: 20 January 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Safe Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | — | £15 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges (2019-20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Until demands for correctly calculated and particularised service charges for the year ending March 2021 based on the actual costs are demanded, no sums are found to be payable.”
“The tribunal finds the key cutting costs of £15 are reasonable and payable as they fall under 'maintenance.”
“Managing agent fees for the service charge ended March 2021 should be reduced by £150 per lessee to reflect the sub-standard level of management provided to the lessees in this year.”
“In the absence of the production of the building insurance schedule, notwithstanding the premises from part of the landlord's portfolio, the tribunal is unable to determine if these costs are reasonable and payable.”
“The tribunal dismisses the applicant's arguments that the lease(s) provide for the recovery of costs. The tribunal finds there is no provision in the lease permitted the landlord to recover legal costs.”
“arrears of payment for major works and service charges for the year ending March 202 are subject to the Consent Order date 13 February 2020 in application ref:LON/00AN/LSC/2019/0442 and not within the jurisdiction of the court/tribunal in this claim/application.”
“The applicant neither provided a fully pleaded Particulars of Claim in the count court or a fully itemised Statement of Case in respect of the tribunal proceedings for any or all the 4 claims. Further, no witness statements of fact in support of the claim were provided.”
“The tribunal finds that all parties appear to have misunderstood or have not fully appreciated the effect of the Settlement Agreement/Consent Order on the claim for service charges for the years ending March 2019 and 2020.”
“The tribunal is of the view that neither party has fully appreciated the effect of the Consent Order on the service charges due from the lessees in the period which it covers, or how it is to be implemented, if compliance with its terms have not been met.”
“This led to disjointed hearing.”
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.