LON/00AU/LSC/2020/0376 — service charge decision
In LON/00AU/LSC/2020/0376, decided 4 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 3 Riversdale Road, London N5 2SS and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 Riversdale Road, London N5 2SS
Decision date: 4 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £2,328.36 | £1,548.10 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2018) | £144 | £144 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £246 | £246 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | £240 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary |
| Management fees (2018) | £720 | £497.65 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018) | £150 | £0 | conceded | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the final sum payable by way of service charge for insurance is £2,328.36 - £780.26, or £1,548.10, and that this is a reasonable sum.”
“the tribunal considers it was reasonable for the second cleaning invoice to have been included in the service charges for period after 24 March 2018”
“Assethold has produced the invoice for £246 from PropertyRun Electrical Contracting for £246 for a call out to the Building on 26 April 2018 for an Electrical Installation Certificate.”
“It should have been obvious to Mr Gurvits that voluntary expenditure of this magnitude, not for any necessary works, would be unacceptable to the Tenants. He should not therefore have served any s.20 notice.”
“the tribunal allows 212 days at a daily rate calculated as £856.80/365.”
“In the Schedule, Assethold now accept that this was not incurred and so should be refunded. The tribunal therefore allows £0.”
“No good explanation has been provided by Assethold as to why this information was not provided to the Tenants' solicitors and the refund paid promptly following completion.”
“The tribunal considers that it was unreasonable for Eagerstates to proceed to serve any s.20 notice given that the proposed cost was many orders of magnitude greater than the modest expenditure originally proposed by Mr Handscombe, and was not necessary. It should have been obvious to Mr Gurvits that voluntary expenditure of this magnitude, not for any necessary works, would be unacceptable to the Tenants. He should not therefore have served any s.20 notice.”
“Eagerstates' response on 22 March 2019 that they no longer held the files because they had been archived and that any queries about the charges should have been dealt with prior to completion was especially unreasonable given their failure to provide accurate figures at completion in a timely fashion, and Greenwoods' assurances that the insurance could be apportioned after completion.”
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.