LON/00AZ/LSC/2020/0165 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2020/0165, decided 27 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 & 2, 59 Waldram Park Road, SE23 2PW and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 & 2, 59 Waldram Park Road, SE23 2PW
Decision date: 27 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Peak Estates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2019) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2019) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2019) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £669.80 | £669.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2019) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2019) | £96 | £96 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Communal cleaning 1,500.00 50% 750.00 [per flat, apportionment at 50% upheld as only cost charged solely to flats]”
“Window cleaning 300.00 33.33r% 100.00 [per flat, apportionment corrected from 50% to 33.33%]”
“Health and Safety 500.00 33.33r% 166.67 [per flat]”
“Fire risk assessment 300.00 33.33r% 100.00 [per flat]”
“Building Insurance 669.80 33.33r% 223.27 [per flat]”
“General maintenance 600.00 33.33r% 200.00 [per flat, apportionment corrected from 50% to 33.33%]”
“the applicant as a responsible landlord should have known that no communal electricity costs would be incurred and an estimate for those costs should not have been included.”
“That however is not a good reason for loading the estimated and actual costs on to the lessees of the two flats. During the conversion works the ground floor still benefited from the expenditure. In any event it was the ground floor lessee's decision to convert the retail unit and it is neither fair nor reasonable to penalise the lessees of the two flats for that decision.”
“It would have been wholly unfair and unjust for the tribunal to consider the further charges in Mr Khoffman's absence and without his consent. Any decision on those further charges would amount to a procedural irregularity giving rise to a justifiable ground of appeal.”
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.