LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0227 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0227, decided 17 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 71 Kensington Heights, 91-95 Campden Hill Road, London W8 7BD and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 71 Kensington Heights, 91-95 Campden Hill Road, London W8 7BD
Decision date: 17 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2018-2019) | £7,203 | £4,203 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-2019) | £2,232 | £1,176 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2018-2019) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“a reasonable overall fee, inclusive of VAT and inclusive of the £3.00 in disbursements, would be £4,203.00 (a reduction of £3,000.00)”
“we do not accept that it is reasonable to charge anything on top of the first survey, and in our view the charge of £1,176.00 inclusive of VAT (as per the first invoice) is comfortably sufficient for the whole of the work done by the surveyor. The second invoice is therefore disallowed”
“£500.00 + VAT, representing less than 3 hours' work at £175 + VAT per hour, is a reasonable charge in the circumstances. The managing agent's fee of £600.00 inclusive of VAT is therefore fully payable.”
“there is no proper basis for us to require the Respondent to do so. First of all, it is standard for a tenant to bear his own legal costs in connection with an application for consent under his lease.”
“it is very arguable that the Respondent and its professional advisers could have explained the position more clearly to the Applicant at times and that the Respondent could have been more helpful at the stage when the Applicant was trying to establish the basic ground rules for the process.”
“the legitimate concerns expressed by the Respondent about the Applicant's breaches of covenant seem at times to have led to an overly pedantic and heavy-handed approach, for example by arguing that the Applicant needed to send more than one copy of the drawings by email.”
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.