LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0054 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0054, decided 26 August 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 22 Lambert Road, London SW2 5BD and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 22 Lambert Road, London SW2 5BD
Decision date: 26 August 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Moreland Estate Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2020) | £600 | £0 | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020) | £175 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020) | £150 | £0 | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2021) | £600 | £0 | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £175 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2021) | £10,000 | £0 | conceded | No Section 20 consultation |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent had or would credit the Applicants in relation to the cleaning fees for both years … because no cleaning or auditing had been carried out.”
“The charges for 'health and safety' were not reasonably incurred.”
“the Respondent had or would credit the Applicants in relation to … the audit fees for 2020, because no cleaning or auditing had been carried out.”
“the Respondent had or would credit the Applicants in relation to the cleaning fees for both years … because no cleaning or auditing had been carried out.”
“Decision: The charges for 'health and safety' were not reasonably incurred.”
“the charge in relation to Japanese knotweed fell, as no money had been expended (and there had been no consultation procedure under section 20 of the 1985 Act).”
“We regard Mr Mendelsohn's distinction between budgets and final accounts as misleading. They were service charge demands, not budgets.”
“The implication of Mr Mendelsohn's submission is that it is wrong for tenants to apply to the Tribunal in advance of the later reconciliation of service charges demanded by a freeholder, which we consider unsustainable.”
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.