LON/00BD/LSC/2022/0099 — service charge decision
In LON/00BD/LSC/2022/0099, decided 17 April 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 1 Mountstuart Court, 2 Southcott Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0BF and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1 Mountstuart Court, 2 Southcott Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0BF
Decision date: 17 April 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hazelvine Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | £168 | £168 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £234.70 | £234.70 | conceded | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £57.11 | £57.11 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £28.56 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant was contractually liable under paragraphs 9.4(c) and/or 9.5(d) in Chapter 9 of the lease to provide the Respondent with a full indemnity for these costs.”
“the Applicant agreed to pay her service charge contribution for the costs of £4,200. Therefore, by reason of the Applicant's agreement, the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to make any determination about these costs.”
“Having regard to the long and acrimonious relationship between the parties and the extent of the issues raised in the last proceedings, the Tribunal had little difficulty in concluding that the Respondent's solicitor would have been required to carry out extensive work and, therefore, the costs claimed did not strike the Tribunal as being excessive.”
“the sum of £28.56 was a sum claimed directly from each of the lessees as a member of the Respondent company. The Tribunal ruled that, as such, it was a matter of company governance and outside the scope of the service charge provisions in the lease and, therefore, the Tribunal's jurisdiction.”
“the Tribunal did not consider it procedurally fair to the Applicant to be "ambushed" in this way.”
“It is more likely that the photograph was either taken after the visit on 4 November 2020 had taken place or on some other occasion.”
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.