LON/00AU/LSC/2024/0024, 0025, 0027, 0028 — service charge decision
In LON/00AU/LSC/2024/0024, 0025, 0027, 0028, decided 21 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flats 25, 29, 59 and 103 Florin Court, 6-9 Charterhouse Square, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 25, 29, 59 and 103 Florin Court, 6-9 Charterhouse Square, London
Decision date: 21 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Fifield Glynn Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-2022) | £9,450 | £8,316 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2021-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the reserve fund demands should have been reduced by 12% because it ought to have been clear that the cost of fireproofing to the doors and cupboards should not have been included.”
“We are consequently not satisfied that Paragraph 1.15 permits the Applicant to recover the costs of works to demised parts of the building as a service charge.”
“The fees do not seem to be outside the range of reasonable charges for a debt collection agency. In our view they are recoverable and reasonable in amount.”
“The Respondent disclosed the capital expenditure plan on the day before the hearing listed on 7 June 2024 but unfortunately this was not forwarded to counsel for the Respondents until after the hearing had started.”
“He pointed out that the Applicant had not disclosed either the capital expenditure plan or any of the underlying documents used to prepare it.”
“Mr Fifield was unable to say why it was that the total sums demanded by POD from all leaseholders toward the reserve fund in September 2021 totalled £800,000, which was £232,412 less than the estimated costs of the year 1 works.”
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.