LON/00BD/LSC/2023/0349 — service charge decision
In LON/00BD/LSC/2023/0349, decided 30 January 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 1 Mountstuart Court, 2 Southcott Road, Teddington, Middx TW11 0BF and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1 Mountstuart Court, 2 Southcott Road, Teddington, Middx TW11 0BF
Decision date: 30 January 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021) | £853.68 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2021) | £39 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022) | £922.66 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2021) | £3,375.50 | £3,375.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £853.68 | £853.68 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £45.48 | £45.48 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £-15.12 | £-15.12 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“1 July 2021 Half yearly service charge in advance £853.68 … the Tribunal concludes that the relevant service charges which fall within clause 11.11 for the period July 2021 to the end of June 2022”
“21 Sep 2021 Late Payment Admin Fee £39 … the Tribunal concludes that the relevant service charges which fall within clause 11.11”
“1 Jan 2022 Half yearly service charge in advance £922.66 … the Applicant is not liable to pay the whole of the sum of £1,800.22”
“the roof works are an example of long-term capital expenditure which provide for a period of maintenance considerably in excess of the period of the Applicant's claim … The Tribunal is satisfied that it would not be fair or reasonable to relieve the Applicant of the cost of the roof works.”
“1 Jan 2021 Half yearly service charge in advance £853.68”
“As for the interest of £45.48, this would appear to arise mostly, if not entirely, from the balance on the Applicant's account prior to July 2021. It would not appear to be fair or reasonable to attribute it to the period when her flat was out of use.”
“The Respondent sought to suggest, and Mr Lewis pressed at the hearing, that the Applicant deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented the position but there is no evidence that her error arose from anything other than a genuine belief.”
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.