LON/00AZ/LSC/2021/0286 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2021/0286, decided 11 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Cavendish Court, 21-23 Bromley Road, Catford, London and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Cavendish Court, 21-23 Bromley Road, Catford, London
Decision date: 11 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £1,032 | £1,032 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017) | £5,233 | £5,233 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £2,750 | £2,750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees | — | £1,740 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | — | £1,860 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of accountancy fees for 2020 is £1032.”
“The tribunal determines that the service charge demanded for the telephone line was payable and reasonable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of management fees for 2017 is £5233.”
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of insurance for 2019 is £2750 made up of £2526 and £224.”
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of management fees for the supervision of major works is £1740 for the supervision of the installation of the intercom”
“£1860 for the supervision of the windows installation.”
“The tribunal was concerned that the schedule did not properly and fully identify the disputed service charges. Instead, there were extensive allegations of poor management, poor communications, a lack of transparency and neglect of the property.”
“Whilst the tribunal agrees that there appears to have been some weaknesses in the supervision of the installation of the windows and is surprised that there are still some outstanding issues, it also notes that the applicant, Ms Chu, urged Prime Management to pay the contractor.”
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.