LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0171 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0171, decided 14 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 47 Clapham Common Northside, London, SW4 0AA and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 47 Clapham Common Northside, London, SW4 0AA
Decision date: 14 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Wilmotts (previously Mainstay).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Gardening & grounds (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017-2018) | £133,700 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondents failed to provide any comparables and the quoted figures appeared entirely reasonable. The sums are allowed in full.”
“The gardening was previously done by a resident but now a contractor was employed. The Respondents failed to provide any comparables and the quoted figures appeared entirely reasonable.”
“These works are entirely reasonable and necessary. The sums are payable in full.”
“The suggestion that a building with 90 steps can function without a lift is rejected. The lift needs to be refurbished and the projected costs of this are reasonable.”
“The Tribunal does not accept that the Respondents were entitled to withhold sums including sums for the insurance premium for a building which needs to be insured based on unsubstantiated concern about the safety of a beam. All insurance costs are recoverable in full.”
“The Respondents had provided an alternative quote from Warwick Estates but their fees were broadly comparable to Mainstay's. The charges are payable in full.”
“Their respective solicitors would be advised to ensure that the Tribunal is kept up to date with changes in a case time estimate in the future. Cases frequently develop over time. It is not for the Tribunal to anticipate changes to the time estimate.”
“The Applicants invited the Respondents to instruct their expert to attend a joint inspection. Mr Vashee did not attend. This is frankly remarkable. This was surely the opportunity to arrive at a consensus opinion. Such a consensus would have broken the deadlock that exists and the Respondents would then possibly have paid the withheld service charges. The opportunity was spurned.”
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.