LON/00BB/LSC/2023/0228 — service charge decision
In LON/00BB/LSC/2023/0228, decided 17 April 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Ruby Court, 9 Warton Road, London E15 2GD and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ruby Court, 9 Warton Road, London E15 2GD
Decision date: 17 April 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21 to 2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020-21 to 2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2020-21 to 2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23 to 2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary |
| Other charges | — | — | conceded | — |
| Staffing & concierge | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2020-21 and 2023-24) | — | £16,896 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23 and 2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22 to 2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“It is prudent for the landlord to meet their compliance responsibilities and to use an independent contactor for this purpose. The costs appeared reasonable and are allowed in full.”
“These costs appeared reasonable and there were no alternative costs provided. The sums are allowed in full.”
“we have reduced overall staff costs by £70000 per annum for the periods in question. We consider the remaining sum is a reasonable fee to charge.”
“We were not impressed by the standard of the internal cleaning, especially in relation to the number of cleaners employed, and we consider it fair to make a deduction to reflect this. We allow 50% of the sum claimed for the period in question.”
“These costs are allowed in full as they are largely unavoidable.”
“We were also not impressed by the standard of the gardening carried out. Indeed it is hard to see that 2 man days a week was justified because much of the landscaping has been affected by the remediation works. We allow 33% of the amount charged for the period in question.”
“We were not impressed by the standard of the internal cleaning, especially in relation to the number of cleaners employed, and we consider it fair to make a deduction to reflect this.”
“We were also not impressed by the standard of the gardening carried out. Indeed it is hard to see that 2 man days a week was justified because much of the landscaping has been affected by the remediation works.”
“We were concerned that sums other than the Estate Operations Manager's salary had been attributed to these costs improperly. It had become like a "slush fund" from which miscellaneous items could be paid for. There were no accounts demonstrating what the management fee had been used for. We asked for this information but it was not forthcoming.”
“We had concern that following the merger manual accounts had been prepared by Ms Rodin. It is not fair on her to have this additional responsibility without the skills to fulfil it properly.”
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.