LON/00AW/LSC/2024/0058 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2024/0058, decided 22 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 45B Philbeach Gardens, London SW5 9EB and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 45B Philbeach Gardens, London SW5 9EB
Decision date: 22 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2023-2024) | £103 | £32.04 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-2024) | £114.84 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £33.42 | £15.34 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £27.96 | £10.56 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant submits that the cleaning is done to a poor standard and that the cleaners appointed by the Respondent spend about 10 minutes cleaning on each visit. She submitted that £32.04 would be a reasonable charge for the actual service she receives and in the absence of any submissions by the Respondent we accept that.”
“There is no provision in her tenancy agreement permitting the Respondent to make an additional charge for gardening services and consequently this charge is not payable as a service charge.”
“The Applicant submits correctly that under the provisions of her lease she is only liable to pay a charge in respect of the cost of maintaining the fire equipment. She accepts that an annual charge of £15.35 would be reasonable for this.”
“The Applicant asserts that the only such equipment in her building is an entry phone. She accepts that the sum of £10.56 being the sum she was charged in 2022-2023 would have been reasonable and we accept her submission.”
“The applicant maintains she had not had the benefit of any pest control measures for 8 years. All refuse disposal services are provided by the local authority. Consequently she submits that the sum recoverable should be nil and we agree.”
“the Respondent has played no active part in these proceedings.”
“The Respondent failed to credit her account in full until 1 May 2024.”
“She asserted that there had been a prolonged failure on the part of the Respondent to comply with its statutory duties to provide information in respect of the relevant costs and to provide disclosure of documents.”
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.