LON/00BE/LSC/2020/0299 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2020/0299, decided 24 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 20 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 237 Rye Lane, London SE15 4TP and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, 237 Rye Lane, London SE15 4TP
Decision date: 24 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020/21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020/21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020/21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018/19) | — | £150 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2019/20) | — | £150 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2020/21) | — | £150 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020/21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020/21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | conceded | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal finds that the lease provides for the placing of the Building insurance concerning the premises 237-242 Fry Lane (lease clause 5.2) and that Mr Cooper is liable to contribute to these charges (lease clause 3.3.3).”
“The tribunal finds that the lease provides for the placing of the Building insurance concerning the premises 237-242 Fry Lane (lease clause 5.2) and that Mr Cooper is liable to contribute to these charges (lease clause 3.3.3).”
“The tribunal finds that the lease provides for the placing of the Building insurance concerning the premises 237-242 Fry Lane (lease clause 5.2) and that Mr Cooper is liable to contribute to these charges (lease clause 3.3.3).”
“The tribunal finds these services have been provided by the respondent and accepts that the sums claimed in respect of them to be reasonable.”
“The tribunal finds these services have been provided by the respondent and accepts that the sums claimed in respect of them to be reasonable.”
“The tribunal finds these services have been provided by the respondent and accepts that the sums claimed in respect of them to be reasonable.”
“the applicant did not differentiate between the service charge years in dispute”
“The applicant did not provide a signed witness statement with a statement of truth from either himself or any other witness statement from any other person in support of his application.”
“the documents referred to were not presented in a digital, indexed and paginated bundle as directed by the tribunal and were presented in a piecemeal fashion and omitted the respondent's documents.”
“many of the assertions made by the applicant as to why he disputes particular heads of service charge were vague and unsupported by documentary evidence or witness statements”
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.