LON/00AZ/LSC/2023/0083 — service charge decision
In LON/00AZ/LSC/2023/0083, decided 30 October 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 and 2 Nutley Court, 127 Honor Oak Road, Lewisham, London and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 and 2 Nutley Court, 127 Honor Oak Road, Lewisham, London
Decision date: 30 October 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2022) | — | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the decision to allow monthly payments is not objectionable as it may assist budgeting by leaseholders”
“recovery from the sinking fund had happened in addition to recovery from leaseholders for the same works. This is self - evidently wrong.”
“The building insurance had increased but there was no suggestion that the costs were unreasonable.”
“The Directors Liability Insurance should not be recovered from the service charge as there is no provision to do so in the lease.”
“The charges of £50 per visit appear reasonable. Accordingly, the sums claimed are allowed.”
“The clauses relied on by the Respondents are not clear and unambiguous, accordingly the legal costs are not recoverable.”
“the sinking fund had been used to pay for legal costs incurred in defending proceedings in the County Court brought by the First Applicant. It's not the Tribunal's function to deal with misuse of reserves. However, the practices described above are wrong. The Respondents would be well advised to educate themselves in managing a sinking fund properly. They are in effect trustees of the fund and should behave accordingly.”
“recovery from the sinking fund had happened in addition to recovery from leaseholders for the same works. This is self - evidently wrong.”
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.