LON/00AN/LSC/2023/0413 — service charge decision
In LON/00AN/LSC/2023/0413, decided 15 July 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 113 Milson Road, London W14 0LA and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 113 Milson Road, London W14 0LA
Decision date: 15 July 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Michael Richards & Co.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2023) | £1,767 | £883.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2023) | £19,442.92 | £19,442.92 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023) | £1,027.98 | £737.46 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023) | £540 | £540 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £420 | £420 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024) | £378 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“issues with consultation with leaseholders, the upset caused by demanding payments for a higher scope and programming the works for the wrong time of year and specifying the wrong paint were failures of a sufficient degree that the tribunal does not accept that 10% fee in this case is reasonable. It finds that a 5% fee is the appropriate amount here.”
“the Applicants have accepted both the cost and workmanship of the works as reasonable, the tribunal cannot find prejudice to the leaseholders.”
“It finds that the revised charge for 2023 of £737.46 (as reflected in the November 2023 invoice from Positive Energy is the correct figure, based on current meter readings and the need to catch up with payment for previously uncharged amounts.”
“A landlord does not have to utilise the cheapest contractor and should ensure that a contractor is able to do a good job. It finds the amount of £540 within the range of reasonable fees and a three year cycle of inspections reasonable.”
“It finds that it was reasonable to carry out this survey before the works and the cost was within the range of reasonable expenses.”
“the cleaning was not to a satisfactory standard and by leaving the carpet in a worse state than when they arrived, no payment was appropriate. The promise of a future clean was not relevant.”
“This dispute could have been avoided if the Respondent had engaged more with the Applicants.”
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.