LON/00AZ/LSC/2021/0257 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2021/0257, decided 1 February 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 8 Greyfriars, Wells Park Road, Sydenham, London, SE26 6RJ and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 8 Greyfriars, Wells Park Road, Sydenham, London, SE26 6RJ
Decision date: 1 February 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ribell Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ground-rent-adjacent charges (2014-2019) | £2,992 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Buildings insurance (2014-2017) | £736.91 | £736.91 | conceded | — |
| Administration charges | £250 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Legal & professional costs | £940 | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Court is not satisfied that the Claimant has established on the balance of probabilities that the 30 day requirement contained in section 166(3) of the 2002 Act has been met. The Court therefore finds that the Defendant is not liable to pay the ground rent.”
“Ms Mathers accepted on behalf of the Respondent that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to determine the reasonableness of the service charges relating to buildings insurance because these have been agreed.”
“Mr Wragg informed the Court and Tribunal that the claim for administration charges in the sum of £250 is no longer pursued.”
“The Claim is dismissed.”
“No persuasive evidential basis was put forward for Mr Grizaard's assertion that the ground rent notices would have been sent out by second class post 1-2 days after Sunday 15 September 2021. He provided no clear explanation for the assertions which he made concerning the general practice adopted in the Claimant's office. Mr Grizaard did not claim to have any direct knowledge of these matters and he did not rely upon any specific hearsay evidence. Mr Grizaard did not, for example, state that Mr Coates or Ms Herzog had provided him with the material information.”
“Mr Grizaard's signed witness statement contains other matters which he readily accepted are beyond his knowledge and expertise. His evidence was hesitant, which is understandable given his lack of involvement in the running of the Claimant company. In all the circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that Mr Grizaard can state with any degree certainty when the ground rent notices were served and does not consider that weight can be placed upon his evidence.”
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.