LON/00AS/LSC/2022/0216 — service charge decision
In LON/00AS/LSC/2022/0216, decided 10 July 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flats 2, 6 and 18, Regency Court, Regency Drive, Ruislip, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 2, 6 and 18, Regency Court, Regency Drive, Ruislip, London
Decision date: 10 July 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Brown and Partners.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £6,700 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £1,260 | £1,260 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £11,427.60 | £10,428.20 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | £1,730 | £1,730 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal therefore determines that no amount is payable by the Applicants in respect of the 2019 roof repair works”
“The tribunal therefore determines that the £1,260 charged in the service charge year ending 31 March 2021 in respect of professional fees is payable and reasonable.”
“the tribunal considers that a sum equal to 10% of the original estimate should be deducted to cover this element; this is £999.40. Deducting this from the £11,427.60 shown in the accounts gives an amount of £10,428.20.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts charged in respect of tree works in the service charge year ended 31 March 2022 are reasonable and payable provided that all receipts from the insurers in respect of those works are credited to the service charge when received.”
“Mr Brown as managing agent did not respond to these. He told the tribunal that he did not inspect the works, merely relying on the leaseholder to do so.”
“No attempt was made to remedy the defects or pursue SC Roofing in respect of them. Mr Brown's explanation of this inactivity was that he wanted to await the outcome of this case first and had six years to act. The fact that the works needed replacing in 2021 suggests that necessity required a rather quicker timescale for action. He also did not know whether any warranty was obtained in respect of the works or indeed why an insurance claim was not made in respect of the leak in the first place.”
“His explanation was that he thought it was not possible to apply for dispensation during the COVID pandemic, perhaps missing the point that the works preceded the pandemic.”
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.