LON/00BA/LSC/2020/0245 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2020/0245, decided 9 February 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, 2 Sibthorp Road, Mitcham, Surrey and found largely for the leaseholder: 11 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, 2 Sibthorp Road, Mitcham, Surrey
Decision date: 9 February 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Salter Rex.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2013) | £1,117.02 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2014) | £1,069.17 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2015) | £1,273.01 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2016) | £2,155.39 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Utilities (2017) | £19.93 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2018) | £28.53 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2019) | £19.29 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2017) | £473.87 | £236.94 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2018) | £473.87 | £236.94 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2019) | £473.87 | £236.94 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019) | £109.95 | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Demands for these periods, if they were sent at all, were defective, and the Applicant is not liable to pay service charges for the period 31.03.2013-31.3.2016.”
“Demands for these periods, if they were sent at all, were defective, and the Applicant is not liable to pay service charges for the period 31.03.2013-31.3.2016.”
“Demands for these periods, if they were sent at all, were defective, and the Applicant is not liable to pay service charges for the period 31.03.2013-31.3.2016.”
“Demands for these periods, if they were sent at all, were defective, and the Applicant is not liable to pay service charges for the period 31.03.2013-31.3.2016.”
“The Tribunal found no reason to persuade them that there was a communal water supply for the benefit of the leaseholders, and that this supply was on balance for the benefit of the commercial unit only.”
“The Tribunal found no reason to persuade them that there was a communal water supply for the benefit of the leaseholders, and that this supply was on balance for the benefit of the commercial unit only.”
“These proceedings could have been avoided, had the Respondents acted in accordance with their management duties, and liaised with the Applicant.”
“The Respondents had failed to engage with her prior to her application to the tribunal, had failed to attend the case management hearing and had failed to provide any documentary evidence to support their claims during the hearing.”
“Nothing in the appeal bundle supported these claims, and the Tribunal found on balance, that if Mr Preko was engaging such a large number of contractors, which would involve substantial hours of work for the company, he would be able to be specific and been able to provide the Tribunal with some documentary evidence of this.”
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.