LON/00BB/LSC/2020/0002 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BB/LSC/2020/0002 & others, decided 12 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 307 Barking Road, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 307 Barking Road, London
Decision date: 12 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Westcolt Surveyors.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2019) | £15,922.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2019) | — | £9,807 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £800 | £800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2018) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019) | £800 | £800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £800 | £800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £1,430 | £1,430 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £11,811.75 | £11,811.75 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the sum of £15,922.50 which the landlord demanded on 26 February 2019 as an interim service charge towards major works was not payable as it was not demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease.”
“the sum of £39,228 for the partial completion of the works is payable and reasonable.”
“The property was insecure and the door needed to be repaired as a matter of urgency. The sum claimed is reasonable.”
“we are satisfied that the interim service charges were not demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease. The sums only became payable when the final service charge for the year had been computed and demanded. The Tribunal therefore finds that these two administration charges are not payable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that a charge of £800 is reasonable for a condition survey and that this sum is payable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that a fee of £800 is reasonable for this work and is payable.”
“The hearing was only necessary because the Applicant had failed to prepare a proper bundle for the tribunal. Had it done so, the Tribunal would have been able to determine the applications on the papers.”
“The images are unclear and there is no explanation as to what they are intended to illustrate.”
“Thirsk Winton did not include these in either bundle and the Tribunal saw them for the first time at the hearing.”
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.