LON/00BD/LSC/2023/0390 — service charge decision
In LON/00BD/LSC/2023/0390, decided 29 August 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at 27 Sycamore House, 5 Langdon Park, Teddington, TW11 9PE and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 27 Sycamore House, 5 Langdon Park, Teddington, TW11 9PE
Decision date: 29 August 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Bartholomew (most recent); previously Curchods, Marquis, Peveral.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2014-2019) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2019-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2014-2015) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | £2,703 | £2,703 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Other grounds |
| Cleaning | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We consider that there is some justification for the criticism of Marquis. Its not clear why they were retained so long if the leaseholders and directors were unhappy with their performance. We allow 75% of Marquis's fees over the period 2014-2019.”
“The Applicant accepted that Curchod's service was better than Marquis but he still sought a 25% deduction. We don't accept that a deduction is justified.”
“The Applicant challenged estimated figures for these years. Actual figures had been obtained which were reasonable. No deduction is made.”
“There were approximately 400 trees on site. A tree surgeon was employed. We allow the amounts claimed.”
“The Applicant said there were no external taps. Mr Beresford said this was not correct and a tap had been installed for gardening purposes. We allow these sums which are reasonable.”
“This was for litter picking on the estate, sweeping the grounds cleaning the gym and spa. We consider the sums are reasonable and allow them.”
“Its not clear why they were retained so long if the leaseholders and directors were unhappy with their performance.”
“The Respondents should endeavour to share invoices with the Applicant however.”
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.