LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0337 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0337, decided 13 July 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Apartment 902, 155 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2FW and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 902, 155 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2FW
Decision date: 13 July 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Strawberry Star London Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2019) | £110,573 | £73,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2021) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2023) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | conceded | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal has concluded that the costs for the cleaning in 2019 would not be reasonable to the extent that they exceeded £73,000.”
“the Applicants' share of the management fee should be reduced by £50 for each of the four years in which the Second Respondent has managed the building, namely 2020-23, for a total reduction of £200.”
“she conceded that the costs should have been allocated to the Estate and this would result in a saving to the Applicants of £6.05.”
“the first lease was a qualifying long term agreement which was tendered for and consulted on in accordance with the statutory requirements.”
“the Tribunal could find no basis on which it could be said that the staff costs were unreasonable.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicants identified any basis for thinking that these costs were unreasonable.”
“It would have been helpful for the Tribunal to have seen the cleaning contract, the contractors' invoices and any other documents setting out how the apportionment was carried out. The Applicants wanted to see the invoices but did not specifically ask for them. However, it should have been obvious to the Second Respondent that these documents should be disclosed.”
“In their response, the Second Respondent asserted that it "will not be shared". No reason was given. This is unacceptable. One party asked for disclosure of a relevant document from the other party. It should have been disclosed. The Applicants have been denied the opportunity to explore the nature of the charge made for the gym equipment or to see whether the terms would have allowed the equipment to be retained on the expiry of the lease.”
“It was telling that, in an outburst from behind counsel, Mr Alam said that the Second Respondent can't provide documents whenever a resident asks for them because they are too busy.”
“the Tribunal understands this and shares their concerns about what appears to be a consistent refusal on the part of the Second Respondent to provide transparency, whether that be in refusing to provide disclosable documents or in trying to pass on complaints to a third party.”
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.