LON/00AZ/LSC/2020/0343 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2020/0343, decided 16 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 333 and 333a, Hither Green Lane, London and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 333 and 333a, Hither Green Lane, London
Decision date: 16 July 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Lockton Real Estate and Construction / Primary Insurance Consultants.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £514.94 | £302.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £535.54 | £317.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £556.96 | £333 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £593.58 | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the sum charged by the Respondent was indeed excessive and so the insurance costs incurred were not reasonable”
“the Tribunal concluded that the sums reasonably payable by the First Applicant in respect of insurance for each of the years in question are £302.50, £317.50, £333, and £350”
“the Tribunal concluded that the sums reasonably payable by the First Applicant in respect of insurance for each of the years in question are £302.50, £317.50, £333, and £350”
“At today's costs it would expect the total premium to be in the region of £700, and it decided that this was an appropriate figure for the insurance cover for the year 2020/2021. Thus, the sum payable by each of the Applicants for that year would be £350.”
“Unfortunately, the Respondent was unable to provide very much at all by way of such an explanation.”
“There was no evidence from the Respondent's broker or from Lockton. Although it was asserted that the portfolio was offered to 6 underwriters every 1 to 3 years and was last done in 2019, there was no evidence of this and there was no evidence of any other attempts to test the market.”
“Overall, the Tribunal was presented with a picture of a portfolio of over 100 properties with no explanation as to how the sums allocated in respect of this property were arrived at.”
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.