LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0383 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0383, decided 11 July 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at 12b St. Johns Crescent, London SW9 7LZ and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 12b St. Johns Crescent, London SW9 7LZ
Decision date: 11 July 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: John Rowan and Partners (JRP) / Mears.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2017-2018) | £1,048.04 | £601.39 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2018) | £4,013.85 | £2,194.40 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2017-2018) | £327.38 | £327.38 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2018) | £771.60 | £212.68 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2017-2018) | £6,624.96 | £1,378.67 | Reduced | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2017-2018) | £3,532.54 | £2,992.69 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-2018) | £307.62 | £240.16 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2017-2018) | £88.98 | £88.98 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017-2018) | £2,214.53 | £2,045.98 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-2018) | — | £352.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2018) | — | £504.11 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017-2018) | — | £1,093.93 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2018) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Other charges (2017-2018) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Other charges (2017-2018) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the total amount payable for concrete repairs at the property is reduced from £3,886.66 to £2,230.66 … the Applicant's share of the cost of concrete repairs which is payable by her is £2,230.66 x 26.96% = £601.39”
“the sum payable for external repairs and redecorations and for works to external walls is … £8,139.46. This makes the total share payable by the Applicant £8,139.46 x 26.96% = £2,194.40”
“The Tribunal was satisfied that these works were carried out and was satisfied that they were reasonable. It therefore concluded that the Applicant's share of £327.38 in respect of these works was payable by her.”
“The cost of plastic guttering and downpipes is roughly 25% of that of aluminium. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the costs of items 7 and 8 should be reduced by 75% … The Applicant's share is £788.88 x 26.96% = £212.68.”
“the Tribunal was satisfied that it was not reasonable for the Respondents to have completely replaced what appears to be a perfectly good roof no more than 20% through its reasonable life … the Respondents should be entitled to recover 20% of the cost of the roofing works.”
“the Tribunal decided that the sum recoverable in respect of scaffolding was £11,100.50 of which the Applicant's share is 26.96% or £2,992.69.”
“As will become clear in what follows, during the course of the hearing it became apparent that the Respondents had not provided a number of documents which the Tribunal would normally expect to have seen.”
“Despite the indication during the hearing by one of the Respondent's officers, Mr. Harrington, that there were in existence documents relating to works to the roof in 2007, and despite the directions requiring these to be provided, nothing further in this regard was sent to the Tribunal.”
“Mr. Harrington was asked which items in the Mears schedule he considered contributed to the charge for external walls. Among the items he identified were items 1, 8 and 10 under the heading 'External Repairs and Decorations'.”
“The Tribunal found this to be an extraordinary figure and asked the Respondents' officers whether they could explain it. Mr. Harrington could not do so”
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.