LON/00AW/LSC/2024/0307 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2024/0307, decided 12 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 15 and 17D Redcliffe Place, London and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15 and 17D Redcliffe Place, London
Decision date: 12 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Daniel Watney LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024) | £17,914 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Major works (2024) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Other charges (2024) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Cleaning (2024) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the cost of pitched roof repairs to of No.17 has not been reasonably incurred. The Respondent, having spent a significant sum of money on repairs to the roof in 2012 ought either have ensured that he had procured a comprehensive guarantee for at least 20 years, and/or should have ensured that he complied with the terms of the guarantee that he had obtained.”
“The tribunal determines that the cost of repairs to the flat roof were also not reasonably incurred. While we accept that the roof requires repair we consider that the need for repair has arisen due to the Respondent's default in not preventing his tenants from accessing the flat roof of No.15.”
“Given that there was already an allowance of £10,363 for contingency it is the view of the tribunal that these additional provisional costs were not reasonable.”
“We did not consider this to be an unreasonable in the circumstances and is in keeping with the level of fees generally charged by managing agents for overseeing works of this nature.”
“the Respondent had not and did not intend to carry out the work to the portico described in the schedule, as it has transpired that the portico roof requires more extensive repair. Consequently those specific costs are not recoverable.”
“the First Applicant confirmed in the course of the hearing that she no longer sought to challenge that cost.”
“It is not clear what the Respondent's case is in this regard. He has not filed a statement in response.”
“The Respondent accepts that the warranty which it had obtained in respect of the roof works in 2012 has been invalidated because a condition requiring annual inspections had not been met.”
“It was not clear why the First Applicant would be liable for 25% of the cost of repairs to No.17 nor why the Second and Third Applicant would be liable for 23% of the cost of repairs to No. 15.”
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.