LON/00AU/LSC/2021/0272 — service charge decision
In LON/00AU/LSC/2021/0272, decided 6 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 5, 1 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4AQ and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5, 1 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4AQ
Decision date: 6 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort (previously Rendall & Rittner).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2014-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2014-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Legal & professional costs (2014-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“she corrected herself in oral evidence and stated that such matters were dealt with on a reactive basis so that it was possible to assign each item of expenditure to particular components on the estate. Therefore, the Respondent had the evidence to justify use of the Components Basis.”
“the majority of components and, therefore, the majority of maintenance, would be within each particular block. Again, the Respondent therefore had the evidence to justify use of the Components Basis.”
“The fact is that the insurers have provided a breakdown by block so that the Respondent has the evidence they need to apportion by means of the Components Basis.”
“FirstPort's actions are reasonable – they have no obligation to seek the cheapest contractor and have sufficient justification for appointing Amalgamated alone rather than ACE alone or in addition.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the Reserve Fund amounts based on Gradient's report were reasonable and that the possibility of overcollection does not cast doubt on either their reasonableness or the apportionment of contributions on the Components Basis.”
“The result is that the Respondent has no choice but to use the Estate-Wide Basis to apportion the cost of powering the air conditioning.”
“The Respondent has never provided this information nor any explanation for their failure to do so. The Tribunal cannot see any reason why the information and documents could not be provided.”
“the Respondent's egregious error in relation to the section 20B letter”
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.