LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0029 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0029, decided 12 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Kelvin Court, 40-42 Kensington Park Road, London W11 3BT and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Kelvin Court, 40-42 Kensington Park Road, London W11 3BT
Decision date: 12 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2008) | £175,000 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2008) | £5,829 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2007-2009) | £79,558.29 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Major works (2007-2010) | £166,918.46 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017) | £44,925 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014) | £19,548 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“to try to object to this charge some thirteen years later is just the kind of payment caught by the principles set out in the Cain decision. There have been many service charge payments since then and there was no persuasive evidence of significant objections stretching through that period.”
“to try to object to this charge some thirteen years later is again just the kind of payment caught by the principles set out in the Cain decision. In the absence of any convincing evidence of continued objections and in the light of the many service charge payments made since then the recourse to s27a is lost.”
“to try to object to this charge some thirteen years later is again just the kind of payment caught by the principles set out in the Cain decision. There have been many service charge payments since then and there was no persuasive evidence of significant objections stretching through that period.”
“because the issues relating to the boiler only came to light comparatively recently, (the Integrated Design report is from February 2019), that as a consequence the additional ground should be allowed.”
“because the issues relating to the insurance claim costs came to light comparatively recently, (from 2017 onward), as a consequence the additional ground should be allowed.”
“the issues relating to the roof damage works came to light in 2014 it was on the cusp of what might fall foul of the Cain principles. However, on balance the Tribunal thought the additional ground should be allowed.”
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.