LON/00AY/LSC/2020/0191 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2020/0191, decided 8 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 26B and 28A Minet Road, London and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 26B and 28A Minet Road, London
Decision date: 8 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2018/19) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | — | £10,678 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018/19) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2018/19) | — | £2,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2018/19) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | — | £6,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | — | £6,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018/19) | £6,310 | £5,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The cost of the replacement of the roofs is not recoverable in the service charge. The costs of the works to the parapets is recoverable and was reasonably incurred.”
“The Applicants did not challenge the reasonableness of the work undertaken to repair the parapets ... the cost, for each house, was £10,678.”
“The cost of replacement of external doors is not recoverable in the service charge.”
“The replacement of two windows in 26B was justifiable under the repairing etc covenant and was reasonable in amount, provided the exact figure remains under £2,000 per window.”
“The costs of replacing the uPVC windows in flat 28B were not reasonably incurred and a service charge referable to those costs is not payable by the second applicant.”
“The maximum cost that would be reasonable for the external decoration of each house is £6,000. Any costs in excess of that are not reasonably incurred.”
“no proper basis for that belief has every been advanced by the Respondent.”
“Where the assertion of asbestos content originated from is not apparent, but the way in which the Respondent's case was put before the hearing indicates that it was at least an important, and probably a determinative, consideration.”
“the service charge payers are liable for costs that should properly fall elsewhere, but are being imposed on them for the convenience of the Respondent.”
“We note in passing, in sympathy with Mr Maunder Taylor's point about the consultancy fees, that had those fees been higher, and a better grip maintained on the work, then some of the problems with the project evident from this application might have been avoided.”
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.