LON/00AP/LSC/2024/0047, 0049, 0050, 0076, 0145 — service charge decision
In LON/00AP/LSC/2024/0047, 0049, 0050, 0076, 0145, decided 14 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flats 3, 6, 14, 20 & 32 Queensborough Court, North Circular Road, London N3 3JP and reached a mixed result: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 3, 6, 14, 20 & 32 Queensborough Court, North Circular Road, London N3 3JP
Decision date: 14 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023) | £16,572.01 | £16,572.01 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023) | £18,969.67 | £18,969.67 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023) | £12,747.70 | £12,747.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023) | £14,022.47 | £14,022.47 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023) | £12,747.70 | £12,747.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2024) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant demanded the following sums in relation to the major works and the Tribunal is satisfied that they are reasonable and payable: Flat 3 £16,572.01”
“The Applicant demanded the following sums in relation to the major works and the Tribunal is satisfied that they are reasonable and payable: Flat 6 £18,969.67”
“The Applicant demanded the following sums in relation to the major works and the Tribunal is satisfied that they are reasonable and payable: Flat 14 £12,747.70”
“The Applicant demanded the following sums in relation to the major works and the Tribunal is satisfied that they are reasonable and payable: Flat 20 £14,022.47”
“The Applicant demanded the following sums in relation to the major works and the Tribunal is satisfied that they are reasonable and payable: Flat 32 £12,747.70”
“The Tribunal consents to the withdrawal of the applications insofar as they relate to the annual service charge payments.”
“Unfortunately, the Applicant had also committed their own default. Paragraph 1 of the directions had required the Applicant to send to the Respondents, amongst other documents, any estimates on which service charges were based.”
“This misunderstands the approach which Mr Beetson himself identified in his skeleton argument. The proceedings before the Tribunal are not an action for debt in which a court may be satisfied just by the production of a relevant demand.”
“Without the budgets and accounts, the Tribunal cannot determine that monies demanded are service charges and whether they are based on estimated or actual costs.”
“Moreover, since the Applicant had not sent the Respondents the estimates/budgets, it was arguable that the Respondents had not had a fair opportunity to pick out anything they disputed.”
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.