LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0409 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0409, decided 26 April 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, 53 Drewstead Road, London and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, 53 Drewstead Road, London
Decision date: 26 April 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021) | £23.39 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2021) | — | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021) | £733.76 | £733.76 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Respondent had shown that costs in excess of the sum already paid by the Applicant were attributable to the period when he was the tenant, and so it could not be satisfied that any additional sums were payable by him. It was not, therefore, satisfied that a further sum of £23.39 was payable”
“beyond stating that the sum of £480 was solicitor's costs, she could provide no further detail. There was no evidence of any letters sent by solicitors on behalf of the Respondent and no bill from any solicitors for work undertaken.”
“it was conceded on behalf of the Respondent by Ms. Kavanagh that the administration costs of recovering the ground rent were not recoverable”
“The Applicant paid a quarterly service charge of £733.76 on 27 September 2021 in advance. This was not disputed by the Respondent.”
“The Tribunal notes that the Respondent failed to provide anything like a clear explanation of its case and, indeed, it is on the basis if that failure that the Applicant has been successful. The Respondent has not engaged with the Applicant in any meaningful way, as is made very clear by the findings of the Property Ombudsman following a complaint made to them by the Applicant against Eagerstates Ltd.”
“it should have been a relatively simple task for the Respondent to provide a break-down of the costs incurred in the 2021 service charge year in such a way as to distinguish between those costs incurred before the Applicant became the owner of the property and those incurred after, with any continuing costs, such as insurance and management fees, being calculated on a pro rata basis.”
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.