LON/00BA/LSC/2020/0057 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2020/0057, decided 1 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 7, Wimbledon Close, The Downs, London SW20 8HW and found largely for the landlord: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 7, Wimbledon Close, The Downs, London SW20 8HW
Decision date: 1 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Freshwater Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £144 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The sum in issue for 2019 was £144 pursuant to an invoice dated 20 November 2019 for replacement radiators. However, on 4 March 2020, the Respondent raised a credit extinguishing any liability for this invoice.”
“the responsibility for repairing and maintaining the towel rails, the radiators and the radiator valves within the demised premises is not imposed on the landlord (and then recoverable under the service charge), but instead falls solely on the tenant under the tenant's repairing covenant.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Lease permits the recovery of legal costs through the service charge but if it is wrong it considers it just and equitable to make an Order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that the Respondent shall not be entitled to add the costs incurred in connection with these proceedings to the service charge.”
“The Respondent applied to cross-examine Mr Amos but we refused that application on the basis that the directions made no provision for cross-examination, no written questions had been put to him and there had been no intimation of any desire on the part of the Respondent to cross examine him until the service of its Skeleton Argument which was served less than 24 hours before the hearing.”
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.