LON/00BA/LSC/2024/0008 — service charge decision
In LON/00BA/LSC/2024/0008, decided 24 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 and 2, 105 Hamilton Road, London, SW9 1JG and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 and 2, 105 Hamilton Road, London, SW9 1JG
Decision date: 24 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £3,237.70 | £1,750 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £504 | £60 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £228 | £114 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £408 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £432 | £96 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £475 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £144 | £144 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £102 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £900 | £450 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the respondent did not evidence, prior to their debarring, that any market testing had been carried out – and the respondent failed to provide anything further than simply the policy schedule in support of the amount charged”
“a frequency of 4 times a year does seem excessive ... we determine that the window cleaning should be reduced to £60”
“cleaning the gutters out twice a year was too frequent, and once would be sufficient ... the amount for gutter cleaning is reduced to £114”
“There is no obvious cause for the drone survey being carried out within 12 months of an apparently satisfactory roof repair, and no explanation has been provided for it.”
“these assessments do not need to be carried out every year ... or even every other year ... the respondent is barred and can't provide us with either that argument, nor the information to support it”
“We agree with the applicants that monthly testing appears to be too frequent, but we think the fire alarms should be tested every six months ... two checks at the amount including VAT – which appears reasonable to us – leads to a total of £96”
“it appears that the Respondent has failed to engage with these proceedings and has failed to comply with the tribunal's directions”
“We agree that the management of the building has not been of a good standard. This is partly spoken to by these proceedings themselves – the applicants have been obliged to come to the Tribunal, having done so in the past, to achieve fair service charges. There is, of course, a distinction to be drawn between the respondent company and their managing agent (despite their close association with each other) – but a number of the issues in this case are the fault of poor management, and there is clearly a lack of communication between the managing agent and the applicants.”
“This was a valiant effort, but was of course doomed to failure – the Tribunal's Procedure Rules quoted above make clear that the respondent is simply out of time to make such an application, and they cannot make such an application orally.”
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.