LON/00AP/LSC/2021/0234 — service charge decision
In LON/00AP/LSC/2021/0234, decided 16 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at 7 Ruskin Road, Tottenham, London N17 8ND and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 7 Ruskin Road, Tottenham, London N17 8ND
Decision date: 16 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £1,350 | £1,350 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £150 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £1,000 | £832 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £250 | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £400 | £400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £400 | £200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £850 | £850 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-22) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the estimate for insurance was not unreasonable… The estimated cost of insurance was reasonable.”
“Mr Gurvits accepted the Applicants' argument and agreed the estimated charge should be removed.”
“The sum of £1,000 for estimated service charge in respect of communal cleaning is unreasonable. A sum of £832 should be substituted.”
“The estimate for window cleaning is not payable under the lease.”
“the estimated charge was reasonable to cover the appropriate services described.”
“the estimate for the fire health and safety survey was reasonable”
“it was clear to us that there had been a stark absence of engagement by Eagerstates, including, but not limited to, a refusal to meet the Applicants, to visit the property, and to enter into meaningful correspondence in relation to the issues. This conduct at least contributed to the decision of the Applicants to make the application.”
“Ms Robinson noted that it was not based on a physical inspection of the communal areas at the property. She said the Applicants had sought a meeting with the Respondent to discuss the cleaning, among other matters, but the Respondent refused.”
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.