LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0189 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0189, decided 24 August 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Warren House and Atwood House, Beckford Close, London W14 8TR and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Warren House and Atwood House, Beckford Close, London W14 8TR
Decision date: 24 August 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Premier Estates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2021) | £281,766 | £281,766 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £99,728 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2017) | £136,685 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2016) | £104,804 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2018) | £101,138 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2020) | £163,385 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £43,801.72 | £43,801.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“This Tribunal is satisfied that a commission of 5% is not unreasonable for the service provided by FHM.”
“We are satisfied that they did. We reject the suggestion that they should have obtained a second valuation.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums charged in respect of these works are reasonable and payable.”
“We are satisfied that their analysis has been misconceived.”
“We are satisfied that their analysis has been misconceived.”
“We are satisfied that their analysis has been misconceived.”
“It is apparent that Mr Nahar did not heed the advice which we proffered.”
“It is apparent to us that Mr Nahar has not understood the basis upon which the Service Charge accounts have been prepared.”
“Significant costs will have been incurred, which will now be passed on to the leaseholders through the service charge.”
“our preliminary view is that Mr Nahar has come close to, but has not crossed the line that would justify a penal award of costs.”
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.