LON/00BA/LSC/2023/0271 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2023/0271, decided 12 November 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 195-197 Merton Road, London SW19 1EE and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, 195-197 Merton Road, London SW19 1EE
Decision date: 12 November 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eddisons.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2017-2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2021) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £600 | £300 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £390 | £390 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-2018) | — | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | conceded | Apportionment error |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal explained to Ms Pickering that the Tribunal is limited to considering whether particular charges identified by the Applicant are reasonable or payable and cannot conduct a general enquiry into the work of the agents or the accountants.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the charges were incurred and a service was supplied. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is further satisfied that the charges are reasonable and payable.”
“Ms Pickering confirmed that the Applicant had no further complaint to make about the cost of those reports or the resulting service charges.”
“Ms Pickering conceded that the charge of £120 would not be challenged.”
“The Tribunal cannot see how this could possibly cost £500 plus VAT. A reasonable cost would be half that amount, £250 plus VAT.”
“On its face, the Tribunal cannot find anything wrong or even out of the ordinary for the Peak Maintenance invoice but the Metro Safety one is different.”
“The Applicant and his representative had not thought to obtain legal advice and appeared to have had difficulty in understanding that every item they sought to dispute needed to be properly raised in advance of the hearing in order to give the Respondent a fair opportunity to prepare his case in response. Some items in the Schedule were so unparticularised that it would have been unfair to require the Respondent to try to answer them.”
“The Applicant complains of a lack of maintenance but it is difficult to see what he expects his landlord to do when he has no money for that maintenance.”
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.