LON/00AY/LSC/2019/0305 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2019/0305, decided 6 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 31 Cameford Court, New Park Road, London, SW2 4LH and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 31 Cameford Court, New Park Road, London, SW2 4LH
Decision date: 6 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Highcorn Co Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2015/16-2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016/17) | £1,307.84 | £1,307.84 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015/16-2018/19) | £7,078.03 | £7,078.03 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2015/16-2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“There are 80 flats at Cameford Court. The annual cost of the service is £552 per flat… The Tribunal is satisfied that the cost of providing this service has been reasonable.”
“Mr Owusu accepted that this challenge was hopeless… the sum of £1,307.84 charged on 17 August 2016 in respect of internal repairs and decorations.”
“we have reviewed all the service charge accounts and the sums charged seem to be payable pursuant to the terms of the lease and reasonable.”
“The interest is an administration charge… This is not a 'variable service charge' as the rate is specified in the lease. The tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to determine whether the administration charge is reasonable.”
“We did not find Mr Adefisan to be a satisfactory witness. His answers tended to cloud, rather than clarify, the substance of his defence. He accused Ms Hayward of lying, but was unable to substantiate his accusations.”
“He is not strictly an independent expert as he has an ongoing professional relationship with Mr Adefisan.”
“It is a matter of regret that Mr Adefisan did not produce a Schedule clearly identifying the service charge items that he disputed and his grounds for challenging them. Had he done so, the resources required from all parties in determining this dispute, including those of the tribunal, would have been substantially reduced.”
“A hearing of two days should not have been required to determine this modest claim for arrears of service charges.”
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.