LON/00AZ/LSC/2020/0317 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2020/0317, decided 18 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 17 Eastdown Park, London, SE13 5HU and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 17 Eastdown Park, London, SE13 5HU
Decision date: 18 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: 17 Eastdown Park RTM Company Limited (Ms Anette Bartha, director).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £382.01 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £214.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Major works (2020) | £1,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Major works (2020) | £2,923 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £168 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2020) | £81.24 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“no proper service charge demands have been served on the Applicant … no valid demands”
“no proper service charge demands have been served on the Applicant”
“no service charge demand for the works was issued to him, and in oral evidence he could not explain what this charge was for”
“no service charge demands were issued for this amount”
“these were not validly claimed, as they are for a legal letter chasing him for fees that has not been demanded”
“he was in credit at the time this was incurred … not liable for this interest charge”
“It was noted that the Respondent had failed to comply properly with directions. In particular she had not provided invoices, service charge demands, a legal submission, or a signed statement. Nor had she provided any comments on the Applicant's Schedule [1] in response to the items disputed by him. The directions had ordered the Respondent to be responsible for preparing a digital indexed and paginated hearing bundle. Instead, the Tribunal received various individual documents.”
“the management of the block was muddled, ad hoc, and contrary to the terms of the lease.”
“The document the Respondent refers to as a witness statement is neither dated nor signed. Nor does it give the name of the person who produced the document.”
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.