LON/00AY/LSC/2019/0479 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2019/0479, decided 11 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 22 Century House & Parking Space 19, 245 Streatham High Road, London, SW16 6ER and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 22 Century House & Parking Space 19, 245 Streatham High Road, London, SW16 6ER
Decision date: 11 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Houston Lawrence Management (HLM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £1,967.22 | £1,967.22 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £158.88 | £158.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2017-18) | £1,568.25 | £1,568.25 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £2,133.90 | £2,133.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2017-18) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £2,850 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The FTT is satisfied that this sum is payable and reasonable.”
“The FTT is satisfied that this sum is payable and reasonable.”
“The FTT is satisfied that this sum is payable and reasonable.”
“The FTT is therefore satisfied that the sum of £2,133.90 is both payable and reasonable.”
“This demand was not accompanied by the requisite Summary of Rights and Obligations required by Schedule 11, paragraph 4 of the 2002 Act. This defect has not been remedied and this sum is therefore not payable.”
“The FTT is satisfied that this claim is without foundation. There is no evidence that there was any contract between the Landlord and the Tenant as alleged by Dr Chelliah.”
“We did not find him a satisfactory witness. He suggested that both Mr Langan and Burns & Co (the Landlord's accountants) were guilty of professional misconduct. Whilst it seems that Mr French, an aggrieved litigant in three sets of tribunal proceedings, made complaints to their professional bodies, there is no evidence that these were upheld.”
“Dr Chelliah raised a number of procedural issues rather than address the substantive issues in dispute.”
“The FTT considers that it is most unlikely that these sums have been paid. Dr Chelliah's charge out rate is manifestly unreasonable.”
“Given his antagonism towards the Landlord and its directors, it is most improbable that they considered his involvement to be constructive.”
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.