LON/00AU/LSC/2023/0230 — service charge decision
In LON/00AU/LSC/2023/0230, decided 3 January 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at Flat 5, 59 Huntingdon Street, London N1 1BX and reached a mixed result: 15 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5, 59 Huntingdon Street, London N1 1BX
Decision date: 3 January 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016/17–2021/22) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2016/17) | £1,644 | £1,397.40 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2017/18) | £1,644 | £1,397.40 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2018/19) | £1,692 | £1,438.20 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £1,706.40 | £1,194.48 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £1,720.80 | £1,204.56 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £1,742.40 | £1,219.68 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Major works (2021/22) | £13,947.60 | £13,245.24 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2021/22) | £5,154.24 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2021) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2021) | £216 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2021) | £474 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2023) | £60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Accordingly, the insurance premiums are payable in full in respect of each year of challenge.”
“2016/17 – from £1,644.00 to £1,397.40 (a reduction of 15%)”
“2017/18 – from £1,644.00 to £1,397.40 (a reduction of 15%)”
“2018/19 – from £1,692.00 to £1,438.20 (a reduction of 15%)”
“2019/20 – from £1,706.40 to £1,194.48 (a reduction of 30%)”
“2020/21 – from £1,720.80 to £1,204.56 (a reduction of 30%)”
“Eagerstates' handling of the roof works issue was poor at many stages of the process. They were either obstructive and uncommunicative on many occasions, and the impression one gets is of the Applicants' concerns being regarded as merely a nuisance to be either blocked or ignored.”
“Eagerstates should have treated the Applicants with more respect and should not have ignored several requests for further information and then just sent them aggressive letters chasing the alleged arrears and purporting to impose penalty charges.”
“The Respondent's written submissions in purported justification of these charges are very thinly argued, there is no witness statement on behalf of the Respondent, and nobody was available at the hearing to be cross-examined on any factual issues.”
“the Respondent has been obstructive in its dealings with the Applicants, and the evidence before us indicates that this approach has been a major factor in the Applicants having concluded that their best option was to apply to the tribunal for a formal determination.”
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.