LON/00AP/LSC/2023/0394 — service charge decision
In LON/00AP/LSC/2023/0394, decided 23 July 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 31 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-4 and 6-8, 196 West Green Road, London N15 5AG and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-4 and 6-8, 196 West Green Road, London N15 5AG
Decision date: 23 July 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2019) | £960 | £768 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2019) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2019) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2019) | £3,840 | £3,840 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £380 | £380 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £280 | £280 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £582 | £582 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £385 | £385 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | £58 | £58 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £660 | £660 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £260 | £260 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £1,718.40 | £1,718.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £4,815 | £4,815 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £1,800 | £1,800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £264 | £264 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £974.40 | £974.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £60 | £60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £408 | £408 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £510 | £510 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £282 | £282 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £240 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £5,110 | £5,110 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £6,132 | £6,132 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £2,500 | £2,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £481.56 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £65 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £240 | £0 | conceded | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“there were a number of management failings in 2019 … it is appropriate to reduce the management fee by 20% so as to recognise that there were problems whilst also acknowledging that the Respondent did provide management services”
“As the Respondent failed to organise a free extra bin it should not be entitled to pass the wholly unnecessary expense on to leaseholders. Therefore, this sum is not payable at all.”
“The Applicants have produced no credible hard evidence that the Respondent has fabricated these charges or that they are unreasonable … the amount itself seems reasonable in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.”
“based on the information before us we consider on the balance of probabilities that this does indeed relate to company secretarial issues, possibly those relating to Deniz Investments Limited itself. In the absence of a proper explanation from the Respondent we consider on balance that this sum is not payable by leaseholders”
“The amount charged works out at £366 + VAT per flat, which whilst slightly on the high side is within a range of fees which could be considered reasonable, and the Respondent is not obliged to go with the cheapest quote.”
“whilst ABC's basic fee is not so high as to be unreasonable it is in our view on the high side of reasonable … it is unreasonable to charge extra for this service where – as here – the basic fee is already on the high side of what is reasonable. Therefore, the out-of-hours fee is disallowed in its entirety.”
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.