LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0439 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2021/0439, decided 29 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-16 Sloane Square House, 1 Holbein Place, London SW1W 8NS and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-16 Sloane Square House, 1 Holbein Place, London SW1W 8NS
Decision date: 29 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Commercial Estates Group Limited (CEG).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2014-2017) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2019-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £50,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The fact that in respect of the years 2014 to 2017 the Respondent was unable to obtain a rebate due to the claim having been made outside HMRC's limitation period does not render the sums in question payable by the Applicant.”
“the aggregate charges are lower than those of the Applicant's own managing agents … we are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the aggregate charges are reasonable in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.”
“the amount of information provided by the Respondent to support the demand for this very large contribution towards the reserve fund at the time was simply inadequate, and it seems that no proper process was gone through.”
“This charge is very misleadingly described in the accounts as an 'accrual', and the Respondent now accepts that it was not an accrual, or at least it has not sought to argue that it was. At the hearing Mr Escott was unable to explain why it had been characterised as an accrual and had very little to add by way of explanation of the charge beyond what was contained in the hearing bundles.”
“what is striking is the almost complete absence of process or proper explanation. First of all, there is the point that it was initially – and inaccurately – described as an accrual. Secondly, the amount of information provided by the Respondent to support the demand for this very large contribution towards the reserve fund at the time was simply inadequate, and it seems that no proper process was gone through.”
“We accept that the information contained in the accounts is unhelpful in identifying the rationale behind what appeared to be a separate additional management fee but which now turns out simply to be an increase to the original management fee.”
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.