Decision summary

LON/00AW/LSC/2023/0111 — service charge decision

In LON/00AW/LSC/2023/0111, decided 4 April 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 70 Holland Park, London W11 3SL and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flat 2, 70 Holland Park, London W11 3SL
Decision date: 4 April 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Quadrant Property Management Limited.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Reserve fund contributions (2019-20)£908£908Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2019-20)£764£764Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2019-20)£2,176£2,176Allowed in full
Legal & professional costs (2019-20)£1,132.40£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Reserve fund contributions (2020-21)£908£908Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2020-21)£805£805Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2020-21)£2,764£2,764Allowed in full
Reserve fund contributions (2021-22)£227£227Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2021-22)£905£905Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2021-22)£972£972Allowed in full
Other charges (2021-22)Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid
Other charges (2022-23)Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid

Key passages (verbatim)

“The sum of £5,416.00 claimed by the Applicant for the year to 24 March 2020 was reasonable in amount and properly incurred.”
On reserve fund contributions
“Annual building insurance 764.00”
On buildings insurance
“¼ boiler expenses 387.00 ... ¼ maintenance charge 544.00”
On repairs & maintenance
“the sum of £1,132.40 in respect of legal fees of Chandler Harris...Those are not recoverable as service charges under the Lease.”
On legal & professional costs
“the sum of £5,477.00 claimed by the Applicant for the year to 24 March 2021 was reasonable in amount and properly incurred.”
On reserve fund contributions
“Annual building insurance 805.00”
On buildings insurance
“In his letter to the Respondent dated 22 July 2022, Mr Pomeranc of Pearlmans expressly stated that the Respondent had not been served with the statutory consultation notices in respect of these sums which were, instead, demanded as a price of avoiding forfeiture.”
Of Applicant / Pearlmans Solicitors

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.