LON/00BA/LSC/2021/0072 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2021/0072, decided 17 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 3 The Keir, 24 West Side Common, London, SW19 4UG and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 The Keir, 24 West Side Common, London, SW19 4UG
Decision date: 17 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Stock Page Stock.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2012-2018) | £22,661 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Major works (2017-18) | £988.42 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Utilities (2018-19) | £360 | £310 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2019-20) | £630 | £580 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £738.42 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £5,520 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2021-22) | £1,692 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“When a tenant who has not paid any service charges for six years, is seeking to challenge service charges which date back to 2012, clear and cogent evidence is required. Ms Murray has not produced any such evidence.”
“Mr Fowler accepts that the Applicant has been charged a similar sum as Ms Reuter, namely £988.42 and that Ms Murray should also be entitled to a refund of £738.42”
“We find that the Respondent should have charged £50 for his use of electricity in 2018/19 and 2019/20”
“We find that the Respondent should have charged £50 for his use of electricity in 2018/19 and 2019/20”
“Mr Fowler accepts ... Ms Murray should also be entitled to a refund of £738.42 which should be met by Mr Barnes, the director responsible for this default”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the costs incurred were reasonable; that the works were urgent, and that no prejudice has been caused to the tenants by any failure to consult.”
“His grasp of the detail of the case was not good.”
“The landlord has not managed this Property in accordance with the terms of the Applicant's lease.”
“It is important that SPS should manage the Property in accordance with the terms of the lease.”
“It is important that Mr Fowler should manage the Property in accordance with the terms of the lease.”
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.