LON/00BD/LSC/2022/0368 — service charge decision
In LON/00BD/LSC/2022/0368, decided 9 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at 36 Sheengate Mansions, 243 Upper Richmond Road West, Mortlake, London and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 36 Sheengate Mansions, 243 Upper Richmond Road West, Mortlake, London
Decision date: 9 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Sweetings Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £1,981 | £1,614.30 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £2,066 | £1,734.52 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Major works (2021-22) | £7,813 | £7,813 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £3,000 | £3,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal is satisfied that this falls within cl. 6(c) and/or cl. 4A of the lease and is payable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that this falls within cl. 6(d) and/or cl. 4A of the lease and is payable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that this falls within cl. 6(a) and/or cl. 4A of the lease and is payable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that this falls within cl. 6(e) and/or cl. 4A of the lease and is payable.”
“Fire and emergency lighting: The Tribunal is satisfied that this falls within cl. 6(c) and/or cl. 6(n) and/or cl. 4A of the lease and is payable.”
“Accountants' fees: The Tribunal is satisfied that this falls within cl. 6(h)(ii) and/or cl. 4A of the lease and is payable.”
“The Tribunal informed her that it was not prepared to start reading a bundle of over 1,400 pages and so would not have regard to it, but that if there was a document that she particularly wished to rely upon, the Tribunal would consider admitting it, on an individual basis.”
“None of these matters are relevant to the substantive decisions before the Tribunal (having particular regard to the order from the Case Management Hearing, making clear what the Tribunal would and would not consider (and stating that it would not consider any issues relating to the corporate governance of the Appellant company or the conduct of its directors or allegations of victimisation of the Respondent) and so, although they have been taken into account, they are not material to our decision.”
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.