LON/00AZ/LSC/2022/0240 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2022/0240, decided 6 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at Flats 212 & 86 River Mill One, Station Road, London SE13 5FS and reached a mixed result: 11 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 212 & 86 River Mill One, Station Road, London SE13 5FS
Decision date: 6 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: JFM Block and Estate Management LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2017-2021) | — | £70,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2017-2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Administration charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | £3,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019) | £5,270 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | £12,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2018) | — | £8,650 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2021) | — | £12,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary |
| Cleaning (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | £4,500 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2017-2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2021) | — | £45,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2021) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Management fees (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“it was agreed that the total staff costs will be limited to a maximum of £70,000 per annum because there is no evidence before the Tribunal justifying an increase above this figure from year to year”
“the Tribunal finds that the service charge costs under this heading are reasonable and payable in the service charge years which form the subject of this application.”
“the Tribunal finds that the service charge costs under this heading are reasonable and payable in the service charge years which form the subject of this application.”
“the Tribunal is therefore not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any of the costs under this heading were reasonably incurred or that they are reasonable in amount. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that no costs under this heading are payable”
“Mr Jeffrey stated that he is no longer challenging the costs under this heading.”
“Mr Jeffrey stated that he is no longer challenging the costs under this heading.”
“The staff costs have fluctuated considerably without any satisfactory explanation. The evidence given on this issue was purely speculative.”
“taking into account all of the findings set out above and the speculative nature of much of the Second and Third Respondent's evidence, the Tribunal exercises its discretion to order the Second and Third Respondents to reimburse the Tribunal fees which Mr Jeffrey has paid.”
“Mr Robertson did not know why the sums which should have been covered by warranty were charged to the service charge account by the previous managing agents.”
“he did not know why a claim had not been made against the warranty in respect of these costs.”
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.