LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0031 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0031, decided 27 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 9, Tower View, 171 Tower Bridge Road, London SE1 2AW and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 9, Tower View, 171 Tower Bridge Road, London SE1 2AW
Decision date: 27 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2019) | £360 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £600 | £200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019) | £14.44 | £14.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £20.69 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2019-2021) | £2,165.70 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £744.14 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“a figure of £360 seems excessive particularly as an administration cost is subsequently claimed, although disallowed, of £240. Again, doing the best we can on the information available we allow £100 for this.”
“A charge of £600 for an LBC seems to us to be excessive. We do not know what the solicitor's hourly charging rate is but doing the best we can we assess those costs at £200.”
“the interest payments that post-date the 1st July of £11.40 and £3.04 are recoverable.”
“There are interest charges claimed in February and in June of 2019. We do not know how these arise. The liability to make the payment does not arise until 1st July and in those circumstances, we find that the earlier charges are not recoverable.”
“The administration costs, solicitors' court costs, Land Registry fee and court fee are not recoverable.”
“there would indeed appear to be double accounting errors concerning the sum of £2,165.70 ... We can see no justification for these sums and certainly Mr Gurvits was unable to explain these anomalies.”
“It was as put to Mr Gurvits that a complaint could be levelled at him in that he had not taken the steps to review the accounting position before the hearing as this may well have avoided the need for the matter to come before the Tribunal.”
“the Respondent has produced nothing to support these additional charges, which were set out in the Applicant's schedule of costs, which do not seem to be disputed. If it was a duplication, then Mr Gurvits should have been able to have resolved that. If it was not a duplication but was another cost, then Mr Gurvits should have been able to have produced evidence to support it. He had done nothing of the sort.”
“His response that the accounts will resolve themselves does not assist.”
“Mr Rajah suggested to us that this was indicative of the accounting practice of the Respondent, which had caused the Applicant to question the accounts for each year.”
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.