LON/00AZ/LSC/2022/0013 — service charge decision

“The Tribunal can find no reason to disagree with the Respondent's statement that the space allocated to the Applicant in 2016 and used by him without complaint for nearly two years was and remains his allocated space and further, that they were unable to change this space for the reasons cited above. On that basis the penalty parking charges imposed by the Respondent are justified and the reasonableness of their amounts had not been challenged by the Applicant.”

“The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's argument and finds the charges both reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”

“In the absence of any alternative quote from the Applicant the Tribunal finds this charge reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”

“The Respondent said that the lifts were serviced monthly and that the contract had been tendered as part of a portfolio in order to keep costs down. In the absence of alternative evidence the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's explanation and finds this charge reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”

“In the absence of an alternative quotation and taking into account the size and location of the Respondent's estate the Tribunal considers that the charge apportioned to the Applicant is both reasonable and payable by him.”

“The Applicant's offer is clearly unacceptable since it amounts to less than the current hourly London living wage amount of £12. The Tribunal finds the sums charged by the Respondent for cleaning common parts to be reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”

“The document which the Applicant eventually submitted (page 114) is not an alternative insurance quotation, it appears to be an estimate for management of a block which includes an insurance estimate. Not only is this not a quotation from an insurer or broker, it is unclear to what premises it relates, which company the insurance is with, or what the policy covers. It is totally inadequate as a comparative quotation in the present context.”

“In this respect the Applicant has once again misinterpreted the decision of the previous Tribunal where the Applicant had argued that since the concierge services were based in another building on the estate he did not have use of them and therefore should not pay for them. In their decision, the previous Tribunal had indeed suggested that these charges might be better suited to being included and calculated as part of the estate charges but made no order to that effect.”

“This is a slight misinterpretation by the Applicant of the previous Tribunal's remarks which, in declining to deal with years other than those to which that application pertained, had stated that the Applicant was free to make an application in relation to other years if he so wished.”