LON/00AW/LBC/2021/0005 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LBC/2021/0005, decided 30 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at First, second and third floor flat, 120 Kensington Park Road, London W11 2PW and found largely for the landlord: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: First, second and third floor flat, 120 Kensington Park Road, London W11 2PW
Decision date: 30 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Taking all the evidence together the Tribunal was satisfied that in or about 2007 the Applicant's successor in title had acted in such a way as to make it clear to the Respondent that he would no longer rely on or enforce paragraph 9 of the Third Schedule of the lease.”
“The Tribunal concluded that the provision of blinds or shutters was consistent with the requirements of the lease … to the extent that the windows were covered with blinds or shutters there was no breach.”
“the Applicant's predecessor had, by permitting subletting and not requiring a deed of covenant, acted in such a way as to make it clear to the Respondent that he would no longer rely on or enforce the requirement in clause 3(20) of the lease”
“there was insufficient evidence to establish that there had been a breach of clause 3(13) of the lease.”
“Bearing all this in mind the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant had shown that there had been a breach and so the Tribunal concluded that there had been no breach of clause 3(7) of the lease.”
“Despite this, the Applicant provided no evidence of any request. There was no letter from his surveyor or any other evidence apart from what was contained in the Applicant's statement of case. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not only failed to provide any further evidence but had also failed even to state the date(s) on which it was alleged that notice had been given or the date(s) on which it was alleged that entry had been denied.”
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.