LON/00AY/LSC/2020/0387 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2020/0387, decided 15 June 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 20 Raisbeck Court, 24 Rosendale Road, London SE21 8DR and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 20 Raisbeck Court, 24 Rosendale Road, London SE21 8DR
Decision date: 15 June 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Stapleton Long.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-20) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-20) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-21) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019-20) | £7,995.38 | £7,995.38 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020-21) | £8,488.13 | £8,488.13 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2019-20) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The amounts claimed of £500 for each year were accepted by the applicant at the hearing as being payable.”
“The amounts claimed of £500 for each year were accepted by the applicant at the hearing as being payable.”
“The amounts claimed of £500 for each year were accepted by the applicant at the hearing as being payable.”
“The amounts claimed of £500 for each year were accepted by the applicant at the hearing as being payable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable in respect of the major works are £7995.38 and £8488.13.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable in respect of the major works are £7995.38 and £8488.13.”
“The tribunal notes that the building is in disrepair due to the failure of successive freeholders to properly manage the building and also that even 5 years after purchase, a reserve fund has not been established towards the cost of these works.”
“The tribunal is of the view that taking legal action at the point when it was commenced was unduly aggressive as the previous 3 months had been spent in the first lock down due to Covid. There is no evidence of an attempt to discuss ability to pay or agree a timescale.”
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.