LON/00BE/LSC/2019/0388 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2019/0388, decided 2 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 Iris Court, 39a Brayards Road, Peckham, London SE15 3RD and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 Iris Court, 39a Brayards Road, Peckham, London SE15 3RD
Decision date: 2 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: London & Quadrant Housing Trust.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2008/09-2016/17) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017/18) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018/19) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2008/09-2019/20) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2008/09-2019/20) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2008/09-2019/20) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2012/13) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal agrees that £4,200 per annum is a reasonable reserve fund contribution, provided that the balance does not significantly exceed the total cost of works for which there is evidence of £70,682”
“the Tribunal finds that reserve fund charges in the subsequent years 2017/18, 2018/19 and later to be unjustified. It assesses the reserve funds payable in those years at nil.”
“the Tribunal finds that reserve fund charges in the subsequent years 2017/18, 2018/19 and later to be unjustified. It assesses the reserve funds payable in those years at nil.”
“The Tribunal therefore finds that estoppel by convention is not made out by the respondent. The apportionment of 7.14% is void, having been made by the landlord, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the apportionment for each of the years in dispute before it.”
“The Tribunal agrees that it is unreasonable for the residents of Iris court to pay more than 50% of the bulk waste costs in the years when the bin store was situated in the location described above.”
“In all the circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied that this service was provided.”
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.