LON/00BD/LSC/2022/0165 — service charge decision
In LON/00BD/LSC/2022/0165, decided 21 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 23 disputed service charge items at Flat 5 Gordon House, 9 Cardington Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 6BJ and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5 Gordon House, 9 Cardington Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 6BJ
Decision date: 21 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £829.30 | £829.30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £907.41 | £907.41 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £935.84 | £935.84 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £827.54 | £827.54 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £10,989 | £10,989 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £24,540 | £24,540 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £98.97 | £98.97 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £957.60 | £957.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £210 | £210 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £9.40 | £9.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £40 | £40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £5,894.40 | £5,894.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,144 | £1,144 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £172 | £172 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £1,380 | £1,035 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021) | £11 | £11 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £40 | £40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £137.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2022) | £252 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums have been lawfully demanded. We are further satisfied that the sums demanded have been reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums have been lawfully demanded. We are further satisfied that the sums demanded have been reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums have been lawfully demanded. We are further satisfied that the sums demanded have been reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums have been lawfully demanded. We are further satisfied that the sums demanded have been reasonable.”
“We are satisfied that the Respondent complied with the statutory duty to consult. We are further satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to conclude that the works were required and to include insulation in the schedule of works.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums demanded are reasonable and payable. We do not accept that there was any technical breach of the consultation requirements.”
“It does not assist Ms Hooley's case that she has sought to drown the Tribunal in a mass of papers.”
“The Tribunal expressed our concern that the Applicant was ever widening the issues in dispute.”
“It has not been clear what the Applicant has sought to achieve through her application.”
“The only criticism that can made of the Respondent is their failure to appoint managing agents as required by the leases.”
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.