LON/00AR/LBC/2023/0039 — service charge decision
In LON/00AR/LBC/2023/0039, decided 18 October 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 171A Station Lane, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 6LL and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 171A Station Lane, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 6LL
Decision date: 18 October 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the uncontested fact of repeat water ingress to the ground floor shop premises (notably after refurbishment by the Applicant) is enough to establish a breach of clause 2(3) of the lease.”
“the Respondent has not progressed either option 1 or option 2. Given that there is no evidence that the Applicant was responsible for the blow out before 28th October, the defective state of the wiring to the flat was and remains the Respondent's responsibility on the evidence we have.”
“the Respondent's failure to start or complete what were evidently required redecorations … is evidently a further breach of the general decorating covenant in clause 2(8) to paint (etc) the interior every seventh year and then 'to carry out all other works of a decorative nature to the interior of the flat in a good and workmanlike manner'.”
“the particular allegation as to the breach of clause 2(7) … was an abuse and an unreasonable allegation which should never have been pleaded … Mr Loveday … withdraw the particular allegation … at the start of the hearing.”
“Apart from the fact that we consider it appropriate to strike out the allegation on the same grounds as apply to the allegation in respect of clause 2(7), it is hard to see how a refusal for a request for access on 25th but which is provided on 24th is a breach of the covenant to provide access.”
“Mr Loveday, who assisted the Tribunal in running the hearing with a Respondent who had, in lay terms, done little or nothing to prepare for the hearing or defend his position.”
“in the particular case of the alleged breach of clause 2(7), not only was the allegation not included in the application and only referred to at paragraph 9 of the pleadings without particulars, but in the circumstances it was an abuse and an unreasonable allegation which should never have been pleaded by anyone with a remote understanding of the relevant facts.”
“Mr Kilbey has some electrical qualifications and he tended to lecture both the Respondent and to some extent the Tribunal in his effort to explain his case: it could have been done in a much simpler way in a well-prepared witness statement (which his was not).”
“We do not consider that it is necessary for us to go through the detail of the Kyson report: where it describes any defect, it is generally accurate if somewhat hypercritical (eg living room missing trims [24]).”
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.