LON/00AR/LSC/2021/0433 — service charge decision
In LON/00AR/LSC/2021/0433, decided 11 July 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 18 Southbury Court, South Street, Romford, Essex and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 18 Southbury Court, South Street, Romford, Essex
Decision date: 11 July 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Metta Properties Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £6,994 | £1,200 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £1,485 | £1,485 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £1,620 | £120 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £5,280 | £5,280 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £1,295.34 | £300 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £8,250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“£1,200 incl VAT for general administrative expenses incurred by DBM in managing the block prior to their termination in August 2021”
“£1,485 incl VAT for Bailey Partnership's desktop fire safety review”
“£120 incl VAT for DBM facilitating the initial stages of the section 20 process (later aborted)”
“£5,280 incl VAT for Tri Fire's EWS review and certificate”
“£300 incl VAT for some limited work done by DBM during August and September 2021”
“No evidence has been provided by DBM to justify this retention and there is no justification for it being recharged to leaseholders.”
“The Tribunal notes at the outset that the issues in this case could have been significantly narrowed, with fewer Tribunal and party time and resources being expended, had DBM cooperated with their appointing Freeholder properly during and after the period of their management.”
“The parties to the proceedings themselves have been caused much hassle and stress on account of DBM's non-provision of information and documentation and the Tribunal proceedings have been significantly longer and more complicated than they needed to be for the same reason.”
“no underlying documentation has been provided even at this late stage in the proceedings. This is particularly surprising given the large sum of money involved.”
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.