LON/00AZ/LSC/2021/0326 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2021/0326, decided 17 August 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 61B Lewisham Hill, London SE13 7PL and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 61B Lewisham Hill, London SE13 7PL
Decision date: 17 August 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017-2018) | £269.48 | £255.23 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2017-2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2018-2019) | £34.77 | £34.77 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2018-2019) | £232.68 | £232.68 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-2019) | £731.31 | £731.31 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-2019) | £12.86 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-2019) | £48.24 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2018-2019) | — | £144.57 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Ground-rent-adjacent charges (2018-2019) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2020-2021) | £360 | £360 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | £216 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2021) | £474 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the amount outstanding, and payable by the applicant, in respect of the service charge year to September 2018 is £255.23, being the balance of the service charge due for that year, less the incorrect charge for Castle Water.”
“It was agreed at the hearing that the inclusion of any charges from Castle Water in the accounts was incorrect.”
“The applicant did not challenge the reasonableness of the actual fortnightly cleaning and gardening invoices included in the bundle”
“The applicant did not challenge the reasonableness of the actual fortnightly cleaning and gardening invoices included in the bundle”
“the actual service charge payable by the applicant for the half year to March 2019 is … Insurance External £731.31”
“The tribunal notes that there was no supporting invoice for this charge in the bundle and Mr Linnane was not able to clarify the position. The tribunal accept Ms Peers' evidence and finds that the charge is not payable.”
“The tribunal notes that there was no supporting invoice for this charge in the bundle and Mr Linnane was not able to clarify the position.”
“As a professional managing agent Mr Gurvits of Eagerstates will, or should, know that no forfeiture is possible for non-payment of service charge until liability to pay/ reasonableness has been determined by agreement/or the tribunal. The tribunal therefore find that it was premature and not reasonable for him to instruct a Debt Recovery Agency when he did. Eagerstates should have applied to the tribunal for a determination as to the reasonableness of the amount of service charge the Respondent was demanding.”
“even if the fees had been recoverable the tribunal finds on the evidence before it that Eagerstates had not monitored the payments made by Ms Peers as it had failed to cash the cheques which she had sent.”
“a confusion was probably caused by Mr Gurvit's failure to provide an explanation”
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.