LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0218 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0218, decided 3 October 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat A, 384 Coldharbour Lane, London and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat A, 384 Coldharbour Lane, London
Decision date: 3 October 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-23) | £7,500 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £1,050 | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £1,583.75 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the respondent failed to carry out any consultation as required and therefore the sum incurred in respect of flat roof/roof garden works is limited to £250 which is payable by the applicant.”
“the applicant is liable to pay 40% of the Building Insurance only. Further, where the Buildings Insurance demands a contribution of loss of rental income from the applicant this is also to be removed from the demand as it is not payable by the applicant.”
“these charges include payment of accountancy/audit fees; managing agent fees; bank fees; postage and stationary; reserve fund none of which are provided for in the lease and are therefore not reasonable or payable by the applicant.”
“no penalty fees are chargeable under the terms of the lease other than a charge for interest; clause 1(d).”
“the respondent has failed to participate in these proceedings and appears not to have read or understood the terms of the applicant's lease.”
“the respondent has failed to identify the nature and extent of the works carried out for which it now seeks to charge the applicant and therefore, the cost of these works cannot be regarded as reasonable.”
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.