LON/00AR/LSC/2023/0150 — service charge decision
In LON/00AR/LSC/2023/0150, decided 10 June 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 48 Mawney Close, Romford, RM7 8EJ and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 48 Mawney Close, Romford, RM7 8EJ
Decision date: 10 June 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Baily Garner.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021) | £22,744.69 | £20,909.31 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,264.25 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £715 | £318.23 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £7.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the £22,744.69 claimed by the Respondent from Mrs Kulik for the cost of the Works is unreasonable, accordingly, we reduce the amount payable to £20,909.31, which we consider is the reasonable cost of the Works.”
“we do not find the cost was of £5,057.00, or Mrs Kulik's proportion of £1,264.25, was reasonably incurred, and we reduce it to nil.”
“the rate charged was £1,430, amounting to a total cost of £2,860. However, that was the highest rate amongst all the contractors. It was also more than double the mean average of contractors' rates at £636.45, which we consider to be the reasonable rate.”
“if despite the Block's height, Build-Therm considered it necessary to install a rubbish chute to the scaffolding, we consider this is an item they should have and reuse. We have therefore reduced the cost of this to zero.”
“we would expect the Respondent to clarify why Build-Therm did not do so. Without an explanation for why this item was charged to leaseholders, we do not find the cost was of £5,057.00, or Mrs Kulik's proportion of £1,264.25, was reasonably incurred, and we reduce it to nil.”
“Although detailed documentation regarding the tender process has not been provided, there is sufficient information to establish that 6 firms returned tenders”
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.