LON/00BA/LSC/2022/0253 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2022/0253, decided 20 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 27, Fairgreen Court, London Road, Mitcham CR4 3NA and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 27, Fairgreen Court, London Road, Mitcham CR4 3NA
Decision date: 20 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Principle Estate Management LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | £3,963 | £3,963 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | £2,349.95 | £2,349.95 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges (2021) | £3,600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent had no evidence that the afore-mentioned process had resulted in the Applicants misallocating any of the invoices.”
“The Respondent had no evidence that the afore-mentioned process had resulted in the Applicants misallocating any of the invoices.”
“The sums actually charged by the Applicants were reasonable for the service actually delivered.”
“The sums actually charged by the Applicants were reasonable for the service actually delivered.”
“None of these amounts engaged the statutory consultation requirements as the cost to each lessee did not exceed £250.”
“if a lease has no provision for a reserve fund, the landlord has no power to demand contributions to it.”
“These are serious allegations of criminal conduct. Such allegations should not be brought into legal proceedings unless they are soundly based and supported by compelling evidence. The Respondent had not one shred of evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Applicants had 'fabricated' anything. The explanation was far more mundane – the Respondent simply did not understand the documents provided by the Applicants.”
“No grounds had been provided in support of the application. No explanation had been provided as to why this statement was so late, in breach of the Tribunal's directions, or why the application for permission was so late.”
“the management agreement was plainly relevant even though Principle's fees were not included in the items being challenged but it was only produced on the evening of the first day of the Tribunal hearing.”
“The Claimants' costs are unreasonably high. This is not about proportionality but about whether it is reasonable to devote such significant resources to such a claim.”
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.