LON/00AN/LSC/2023/0040 — service charge decision
In LON/00AN/LSC/2023/0040, decided 22 September 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 405 Goldhawk Road, London W6 0SA and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 405 Goldhawk Road, London W6 0SA
Decision date: 22 September 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: The Residents Management Company Ltd (RMC).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £2,785 | £2,785 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £850 | £850 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £150 | £150 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £450 | £450 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £120 | £120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £3,885 | £3,885 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022-23) | £10,400 | £10,400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £360 | £360 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £120 | £120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £340 | £340 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £2,760 | £2,760 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal accepts Mr Karol's evidence and finds that the budgeted insurance figure (£2785) was payable and reasonable.”
“The Tribunal accepts Mr Karol's evidence that £2000 as a budget for this service charge item was reasonable and notes that this was supported by documentary evidence in the form of invoices from contractors.”
“The Tribunal accepts that evidence and notes that there is no evidence that any other residents have concerns about the service provided by ProTech.”
“The Tribunal accepts Mr Karol's explanation and considers the sums charged in the period for electricity were reasonable.”
“The Tribunal accepts Mr Karol's explanation and considers the sums budgeted for these assessments (£450) to be reasonable.”
“The Tribunal accepts that evidence and concludes that the sum is reasonable.”
“Somewhat surprisingly, the section 20 notices were not included in the hearing bundle, despite being referred to in Mr Karol's witness statement and having been referred to in Ms Lee's Court Defence.”
“Whilst it is obviously important that bundles are prepared with care, especially in relation to such significant documents, the Tribunal accepts Mr Karol's evidence in relation to the 9 June 2021 demand.”
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.