Decision summary

LON/00AT/LSC/2024/0131 — service charge decision

In LON/00AT/LSC/2024/0131, decided 23 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 13 Concord Court Palladian Gardens London W4 2ER and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flat 13 Concord Court Palladian Gardens London W4 2ER
Decision date: 23 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall and Rittner.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Management fees (2022-23)£258.80£150ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Management fees (2023-24)£258.80£150ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Management fees (2024-25)£150£150Allowed in full
Other charges (2022-23)£18.84Allowed in full
Other charges (2023-24)£18.84Allowed in full
Other charges (2024-25)£9Allowed in full
Utilities (2022-23)Allowed in full
Utilities (2023-24)Allowed in full
Other charges (2023-24)ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The Tribunal considers that the benchmark figure should be £150 per annum for this work had the head leaseholder's management been carried out to a satisfactory standard.”
On management fees
“The Tribunal considers that the benchmark figure should be £150 per annum for this work had the head leaseholder's management been carried out to a satisfactory standard.”
On management fees
“the management fee for 2024/5 had been reduced to £150 owing to economies of scale.”
On management fees
“MHTL has also charged an audit fee of £18.84 for the first 2 years and £9 for the third year in issue. This was undertaken by an external auditing firm.”
On other charges
“MHTL has also charged an audit fee of £18.84 for the first 2 years and £9 for the third year in issue.”
On other charges
“MHTL has also charged an audit fee of £18.84 for the first 2 years and £9 for the third year in issue.”
On other charges
“the tribunal agree with the Applicant that the accounts and invoicing are opaque and difficult to follow.”
Of Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (MHTL)
“poor communication and opaque invoicing had contributed substantially to the need for the application to be made to the Tribunal.”
Of Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (MHTL)

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.