LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0414 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2021/0414, decided 19 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 18 Falmouth House, 1 Seaton Close, London SE11 4ET and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 18 Falmouth House, 1 Seaton Close, London SE11 4ET
Decision date: 19 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pinnacle.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2014) | £6,632 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Works not necessary |
| Major works (2016) | £5,586 | £5,586 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2015-16 to 2021-22) | £2,627 | £2,627 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2013-14, 2016-17 to 2021-22) | £195 | £195 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2015-16 to 2021-22) | £6,448 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2013-14, 2014-15, 2017-18 to 2021-22) | £2,499 | £2,499 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-15 to 2021-22) | £2,742 | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Duplication of charges |
| Cleaning (2018-19) | £280 | £140 | conceded | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“As the respondent did not renew the connection to the property, as required by the lease, the charge is unreasonable and is not payable.”
“The tribunal determines that the sum of £5,586 for the gas major works is reasonable and payable by the applicant.”
“in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the tribunal find that the meter readings are an accurate reflection of the electricity consumed by the block and the estate.”
“The tribunal finds these charges to be reasonable.”
“the tribunal find it reasonable to reduce the applicant's contribution to these costs in each year since the intercom and fob were removed… the tribunal find it reasonable to discount this head of charge by 80% in each year in question.”
“There is no evidence before the tribunal which challenges the actual readings provided by the respondent and the tribunal therefore finds these to be reasonable.”
“Mr Stepanyan has largely been reliant upon information and documentation provided by others, who did not make their own witness statements and did not attend the hearing.”
“The tribunal note that the failure of the respondent to provide a fob prevents the applicant exercising the right granted to him in part 1 of the Second Schedule”
“The tribunal would, however, encourage the respondent to investigate how these charges might be reduced.”
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.