LON/00AU/LSC/2020/0030 & 0139 — service charge decision
In LON/00AU/LSC/2020/0030 & 0139, decided 26 February 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 3 Dolphin Court, 42 Carleton Road, London N7 0ER and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3 Dolphin Court, 42 Carleton Road, London N7 0ER
Decision date: 26 February 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Aldermartin, Baines & Cuthbert.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2017-18) | £6,922.24 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2017-18) | £8,520 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £3,086 | £796.26 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019) | — | £719.31 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent claimed £6,922.24 for the costs of PDC Law and £8,520 for those of Aldermartin Baines & Cuthbert which seem disproportionate to the amounts in dispute.”
“the Respondent claimed £6,922.24 for the costs of PDC Law and £8,520 for those of Aldermartin Baines & Cuthbert which seem disproportionate to the amounts in dispute.”
“the Tribunal determined that a total of £1,515.57 was payable by the Applicant to the Respondent in respect of service and administration charges, £796.26 being attributable to 2017-18 and £719.31 to 2019.”
“the Tribunal determined that a total of £1,515.57 was payable by the Applicant to the Respondent in respect of service and administration charges, £796.26 being attributable to 2017-18 and £719.31 to 2019.”
“the Respondent included in their claim sums which should not have been there, particularly in relation to matters ruled on by the Tribunal in previous cases. The costs incurred in pursuing those sums were unreasonably incurred and it would be inequitable to allow the Respondent to enforce their contractual entitlement to costs so incurred.”
“what tips the scales firmly in favour of making an order is the fact that the Respondent ignored a previous Tribunal decision and continued to seek to impose charges to which they knew they were not entitled.”
“the Respondent's claim for costs appears to make no distinction between the two and covers both proceedings. At the very least, costs attributable to the Tribunal proceedings cannot be included in any award of costs by the court.”
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.