LON/00AW/LSC/2022/0355 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2022/0355, decided 13 April 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 20 Cheping House, Lockton Street, London W10 6EW and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 20 Cheping House, Lockton Street, London W10 6EW
Decision date: 13 April 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Peabody Enterprise Ltd..
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Staffing & concierge (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2018/19) | £165.12 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018/19) | £1,162.44 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Beyond these initial challenges the Respondent was not able to provide any substantive evidence or argument as to why any of them should be different from the sums demanded of her.”
“Beyond these initial challenges the Respondent was not able to provide any substantive evidence or argument as to why any of them should be different from the sums demanded of her.”
“Beyond these initial challenges the Respondent was not able to provide any substantive evidence or argument as to why any of them should be different from the sums demanded of her.”
“In the event all of the disputes raised had actively engaged the Applicant's management team and he found it hard to see how no service had been provided under this head as she had claimed.”
“The sum required was the current best estimate of a sum required from each tenant. It might be adjusted upwards or downwards in future years.”
“The conduct of the Respondents case virtually completely ignored the Tribunal's careful Directions issued to assist prior preparation for the hearing by both parties.”
“The Respondent failed to bring either an electronic copy or a paper copy of the bundle and therefore impaired her ability to follow proceedings at the hearing. She advised the Tribunal that she remembered the case well enough.”
“The Tribunal were disappointed at the Respondent's refusal after limited questioning, to answer any further questions at the hearing. She was asked to repeat the remark which she did and the questioning and her case, ended abruptly. The Tribunal found that the answers she did give were guarded, confusing, inconsistent, reluctant.”
“Her case as presented, contained nothing at all of substance about the services or service charges or her challenge to them. The Tribunal had considerable difficulty understanding anything about her case before it that was at all coherent.”
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.