LON/00AX/LSC/2020/0355 — service charge decision
In LON/00AX/LSC/2020/0355, decided 22 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 32 The Watergardens, Warren Road, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT2 7LF and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 32 The Watergardens, Warren Road, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT2 7LF
Decision date: 22 July 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: KFH.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £1,900 | £1,900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £4,463 | £4,463 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £4,601 | £4,601 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2019) | £168 | £0 | conceded | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“We are satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the works carried out by David Cook to the Hallas Specification were carried out to a reasonable standard, and that it was reasonable to incur the costs of the works.”
“The estimated on-account Service Charges in the sum of £9,064 and properly demanded by the Applicant are reasonable and payable by the Respondent”
“The estimated service charge budgets for 2019 and 2020 are reasonable, and the sum of £9,064 is payable by the Respondent to Applicant.”
“It was conceded by Mr Madge-Wyld during the hearing that the Bundle contained no evidence of demands for the administration charge sought, and that therefore that sum (£168) was not pursued.”
“Nor did we find Mr Wade's approach to the issue complained of in this case exemplary, even if we largely agreed with his findings.”
“He was convinced that the failure of the pointing to a single one of the coping stones where it met the stanchions, and nothing else, was the cause of the water ingress into the cladding, despite the fact that the concentrated stream of water onto that area was unlike even ordinary heavy rainfall in its mass. He himself accepted that it was the equivalent of 'flash flood' conditions. He had not carried out a trace test to follow this through as he had determined it was obvious. He had not water-tested even the other stanchions, let alone flood tested the balcony independently of the water directed onto the particular coping stone, in order to support his posited theory that ponding water against the upstand of the coping stones at the front edge of the balcony would allow water to 'percolate through the concrete base'. It is apparent that he had concluded that he had found the problem, and need go no further in his investigations.”
“It seems to us he had made up his mind on reading the Hawkins reports, and had not left himself open to the neutral and objective possibility of anything other than those conclusions being true.”
“the sum claimed by Mr Wade is frankly eyewatering. Extrapolating the fee for his report from the figure by deducting his daily rate for attendance for two days, the sum for his single report of February 2021, in which he stated he was simply instructed to 'review' his previous reports, and did not even attend at the property, calculates out to £8,226.44.”
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.