LON/00BA/LSC/2022/0064 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2022/0064, decided 13 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at 98 Hartfield Road Wimbledon, London and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 98 Hartfield Road Wimbledon, London
Decision date: 13 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Martyn Gerrard.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016) | £1,412.83 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £2,760.80 | £2,760.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | £1,890 | £1,417.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020) | £1,890 | £1,417.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2021) | £1,890 | £1,417.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2019) | £8,900 | £8,400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020) | £840 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £474 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £474 | £474 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £30,882 | £30,882 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £30 | £30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £10 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021) | £3,775.02 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £3,000 | £3,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that a proportion of the surplus is payable to the applicant, although no order can be made this effect.”
“This was agreed with the Applicant and there is no dispute under this heading now that the documentation has been provided”
“This was agreed with the Applicant and there is no dispute under this heading now that the documentation has been provided”
“The certified accounts prepared by the Chartered Accountants enter this figure and it can only be assumed the sum of £2760.80 was sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts, invoices and other documents which have been produced to them”
“the Tribunal considers a reduction in the fee of 25% is appropriate for each of the years. (£1417.50)”
“the Tribunal considers a reduction in the fee of 25% is appropriate for each of the years. (£1417.50)”
“It appears to the Tribunal that this surplus shown in the Service Charge Account has been ignored by the managing agents over a period of some 5 years and could certainly be reflective of the communication between the parties.”
“It is the Tribunals opinion there has been a sustained period of a complete lack of communication with the leaseholders. Consistent requests have been made by the Applicants for information concerning all elements of the day to day management of the building a lack of a future maintenance programme. There has been a lack of transparency on behalf of the managing agents and indeed the fact that they were not prepared to engage in this process runs the risk of an adverse inference being drawn by their non compliance.”
“the managing agents failed to engage whatsoever with this hearing. The Tribunal considered that the managing agents were unresponsive and did not co-operate with the Applicant. Her only recourse was to make an application to the Tribunal get matters resolved and obtain some kind of response. However as we have seen the managing agents did not apply their mind to the issues identified by the Applicant and did not comply will the Directions.”
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.