LON/00BA/LSC/2023/0034 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2023/0034, decided 23 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 and 2 Hamilton Road, London and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 and 2 Hamilton Road, London
Decision date: 23 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | £2,609.78 | £1,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2021-2022) | £252 | £60 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £400.25 | £200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | £750 | £480 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | £121.71 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £373.56 | £373.56 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £187.93 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | £650 | £650 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £198 | £198 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-2022) | £304.42 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £48 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2021-2022) | £878.40 | £450 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | — | £3,900 | conceded | Apportionment error |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The comparators put forward by the Applicants were not strictly like for like and Aviva are a recognised firm… Nonetheless we consider the cost is too high and we reduce the amount due to £1500.”
“We accept the comparator provided by the Applicants and reduce the sum due to £60.”
“We consider this charge is excessive as there was only one corridor to inspect. We allow £200.”
“The sum was recoverable as the nesting of birds was causing an ongoing problem and had to be dealt with. Nonetheless the sum claimed is excessive. We allow £480.”
“This sum is disallowed. There was no evidence that it had been paid.”
“This sum is allowed.”
“the leaseholders should expect a reasonable level of service. Here the Applicants demonstrated that the level of service was poor with bad communication as evidenced by the attempt to recharge for the pest control cost and failing to notify leaseholders of contractor's attendance at the premises but still seeking to recover the cost.”
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.