LON/00AY/LBC/2021/0008 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LBC/2021/0008, decided 10 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at GFF, 26a Bournevale Road, London, SW16 2BA and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: GFF, 26a Bournevale Road, London, SW16 2BA
Decision date: 10 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The front bay window is rotten and is not in good and substantial repair, order and/or condition. This is admitted by the Respondent.”
“The structure and external walls are not in good and substantial repair, order and/or condition, including failed damp-proof course and gaps between plinth and bricks.”
“The rainwater fittings are not in good and substantial repair, order and/or condition, allowing damp penetration. This was conceded by the Respondent.”
“The sun room to the rear is not in good and substantial repair, with the roof allowing water ingress and rainwater fittings causing damp penetration.”
“The rear gullies are blocked. This was not challenged by the Respondent in her witness statements.”
“The external timber is not in good and substantial repair, order and/or condition. This was conceded by the Respondent.”
“whilst the Respondent appears to have an architectural qualification, she is not a qualified Surveyor and is, therefore, unable to properly comment on the findings in the report of Mr Schendel nor can the various assertions made by her in her witness statement about the findings made by Mr Schendel be considered to be independent.”
“The Respondent's bare denial of the missing tiles [RS/281] was clearly untenable given the photographic evidence before the Tribunal.”
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.