LON/00BE/LSC/2020/0280 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2020/0280, decided 25 January 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flat B, 34 Glengall Road, London SE15 6NN and reached a mixed result: 11 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat B, 34 Glengall Road, London SE15 6NN
Decision date: 25 January 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2018) | £63.33 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2018) | £116.67 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2018) | £291.67 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2007) | £1,365.63 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Major works (2008) | £360 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Major works (2018) | £400 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Management fees (2007-2020) | £3,600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Repairs & maintenance (2008) | £493.33 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014) | £133.33 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £210 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £213.33 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2007-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal finds the following works are improvements and are not provided for under the terms of the lease; Metal gate (2018)…£63.33”
“Metal security rail (2018)……..£116.67 — improvements not provided for under the terms of the lease”
“Paving (2018)…………………..….£291.67 — improvements not provided for under the terms of the lease”
“Major works carried out under Notice of Intention dated 11/07/07 Exterior decoration & extra paint …£1,365.63 Disallow………£1,115.63”
“Major works carried out under Notice of Intention dated 05/08/08 Front railings £360 Disallow………£110”
“Major works carried out in 2018 Side gate…£400.00 Disallow………£150.00”
“Mr Pittman was vague in his recollection as to how many quotes he had obtained for each of the works that were subject to section 20 Notices and was vague on the details of the sums paid.”
“Mr. Pittman was also unclear in his evidence as to which wall at the rear represented the boundary wall and was unsure of the extent of his obligations to keep the boundary in repair.”
“Mr Pittman told the tribunal that repairs had been carried out on an 'ad hoc' basis and that he had not been keeping to the terms of the lease.”
“the spread sheet did not appear to accurately reflect these although Mr Pittman asserted it had been prepared by a chartered accountant with the figures provided by himself.”
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.