LON/00BA/LSC/2020/0392 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2020/0392, decided 12 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 20 & 20A Dearn Gardens, Mitcham, Surrey, CR4 3AY and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 20 & 20A Dearn Gardens, Mitcham, Surrey, CR4 3AY
Decision date: 12 July 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pier Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020-2021) | £230 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £1,582.76 | £1,000 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2013-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“This new charge is not reasonable and is not payable.”
“the insurance premium charged by AXA was extremely high... a reasonable amount for the insurance premium is assessed at £1000 per annum for the building. That is £500 per flat.”
“No evidence has been produced for service charge years 2013-2020 and so no determination can be made.”
“There was no evidence before the Tribunal from the Respondent in relation to what other properties, if any were covered by this policy, but the fact that there was a claim from another address indicated that other properties were probably included in this policy as a block policy. No detail is provided in relation to what properties are included, in what areas they are located or their respective values.”
“The new management fee of £115 is said to offer the services of very qualified personnel 365 days of the year. Yet is it not clear what sort of services that would provide. Leaseholders, by the nature of their interest in their properties are required to maintain them. The Respondent, by their own evidence states that the communal area in the building is minimal and it is hard to envisage what they intend to achieve under the terms of the new management fee.”
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.