LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0268 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0268, decided 13 March 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at 34 Beechcroft Close, Valley Road, Streatham, London, SW16 2EW and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 34 Beechcroft Close, Valley Road, Streatham, London, SW16 2EW
Decision date: 13 March 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: PMMS.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018-2024) | — | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Major works (2018-2024) | — | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Dispensation refused |
| Management fees (2022-2024) | — | £100 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £22,000 | £22,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £39,061 | £39,061 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £4,150 | £4,150 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £2,500 | £2,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £102 | £102 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £4,548 | £4,548 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £720 | £720 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2018-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022-2023) | £240 | £168 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the variation of the apportionment was in accordance with the Lease. The Management Company has power under the Lease to vary the amount of the Lessee's proportion, provided it was fair and reasonable to do so.”
“The 'notice of estimates' (A506) did not give a period of 30 days: it did say that observations had to be received within the consultation period of 30 days from the date of the notice, but it also stated that the consultation period would end on 11 July 2020 (i.e. one day after the notice).”
“The Applicant asserted that no s.20 consultation process was carried out. This was accepted by the Respondent. The Respondent sought to make an application for s.20ZA dispensation orally at the hearing.”
“The Tribunal finds that the agreement with PMMS was a QLTA and that therefore s.20 did apply. There was no s.20 consultation process and therefore the Applicant's contribution is limited to £100.”
“The Tribunal finds that the insurance policies (A267, A273) are not QLTA's (as they were not for a term of more than 12 months) and s.20 1985 Act therefore does not apply to them.”
“Taking account of what it was told of the claims' history, there was insufficient information to show that the quotes obtained by the Applicant were 'like for like', as they did not take account of the claims' history.”
“The Tribunal informed both parties that it would not permit such an application to be made: despite asserting in the Scott Schedule that it would seek dispensation, it had not made an application and no reason was offered as to this. It had been clear from the time the application was made (certainly by the time the Applicant served his Scott Schedule) that this was a material issue. It would be unfair to require the Applicant to respond to an oral application made during the course of the hearing.”
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.