LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0179 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0179, decided 24 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 27 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2 and 3 and Flat 1 173a and 175 Abbeville Road, London SW4 9JJ and reached a mixed result: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2 and 3 and Flat 1 173a and 175 Abbeville Road, London SW4 9JJ
Decision date: 24 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £1,020 | £1,020 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £662 | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Management fees (2020) | £1,161.60 | £1,161.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | £717.36 | £717.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £838.64 | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Major works (2021) | £2,393.04 | £2,393.04 | conceded | — |
| Major works (2021) | £4,800.24 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £828 | £828 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021) | £1,171.20 | £1,171.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £2,703.12 | £2,203.12 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £1,530 | £255 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Cleaning (2022) | £694.16 | £694.16 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,228.48 | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Major works (2022) | £9,440 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £550 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Historic neglect |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £690 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Historic neglect |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £723.71 | £723.71 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £828 | £414 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £498 | £498 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £828 | £414 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £720 | £360 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Management fees (2022) | £1,180.80 | £1,180.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £2,838.28 | £2,338.28 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested |
| Cleaning (2023) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £1,750 | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £1,190.40 | £1,190.40 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal determines that the sums demanded in the 2020 service charge year in respect of works to the ground floor electrical intake cupboard are reasonable and payable.”
“expenditure of £350 per annum on these activities in aggregate is reasonable, beyond that it is not.”
“the tribunal determines that the management fees demanded in respect of the 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023 service charge years are reasonable and payable.”
“the total amounts claimed for cleaning each year (£717.36 in 2021, £649.16 in 2022 and £750 in 2023) were all reasonable figures for the work being undertaken.”
“the total aggregate costs payable by the Applicants in the 2021 service charge year in respect of Monthly Fire Health and Safety Testing, Fire Health and Safety Risk Assessment, and Fire Alarm & Emergency Lighting Service is £350 in total.”
“Roof Works in the 2021 service charge year, as per the Section 20 Notice - £2,393.04 … These items were not considered by the tribunal further.”
“The Respondent did not attend the hearing but was represented by counsel. By not appearing, the Respondent was not able to provide assistance to the tribunal in ascertaining the facts or answer questions about the statements made on its behalf. Counsel on its behalf was able to provide useful assistance on the law and in identifying the Respondent's previously articulated positions on issues but this does not replace the Respondent's knowledge. Counsel was unable to respond to factual points raised by the Applicants.”
“it appears to the tribunal that the contractor was given carte blanche to do what works it wanted without being held to a specification and supervision.”
“the respondent has duties to question the superior landlord about how it was insuring which did not appear to have done.”
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.