LON/00BA/LSC/2023/0253 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2023/0253, decided 13 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flats 8, 15, 18, 21 and 27, 75 Worple Road, London, SW19 4LS and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 8, 15, 18, 21 and 27, 75 Worple Road, London, SW19 4LS
Decision date: 13 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Sneller Property Consultants.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22) | £5,210 | £5,210 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021/22) | £10,000 | £10,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022/23) | £2,500 | £1,776 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Major works (2022/23) | £247,117 | £3,275 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2022/23) | £42,467 | £42,467 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023/24) | £888.12 | £888.12 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023/24) | £1,495.87 | £1,495.87 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We are satisfied that these works were required and could not await the replacement of the roof. We are therefore satisfied that they are payable pursuant to the terms of the lease and are reasonable.”
“The Tribunal finds that the following service charges for 2021/22 have been reasonably incurred: (i) Schedule 1 service charge costs: £33,026 and (ii) Schedule 2 reserve fund: £10,000.”
“The actual expenditure was £1,776. We are satisfied that these sums are payable pursuant to the terms of the lease and both the budgeted and the actual expenditure is reasonable.”
“only £3,275 was expended on repairs to roof. We are satisfied that these sums are reasonable and payable pursuant to the terms of the lease.”
“The total expenditure was £42,467, in respect of which Flat 15 is liable for 3.989%, namely £1,694. We are satisfied that these sums are reasonable and payable pursuant to the terms of the lease.”
“The Respondent does not dispute any of these service charge items. The Tribunal is satisfied that these sums are payable pursuant to the terms of the lease and are reasonable.”
“The Applicant has not complied with the Directions given by the tribunal. Neither has it had sufficient regard to the terms of the lease when making demands for the payment of service charges.”
“We are surprised at the limited evidence that the Applicant has adduced to justify their figure.”
“its preparation of the case has been far from satisfactory. Snellers have not demanded service charges in accordance with the terms of the lease.”
“It is not the brief supplementary reply contemplated by the Directions. It rather seeks to raise new issues, including a defence of equitable set-off”
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.