LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0127 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0127, decided 22 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 22b Furley Road, London SE15 5UQ and found largely for the leaseholder: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 22b Furley Road, London SE15 5UQ
Decision date: 22 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hua Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | £35 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £100 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £100 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | £350 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £450 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £450 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £260 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“He confirmed that he could see no provisions in the lease enabling the recovery of audit and accountancy charges”
“On the Insurance administration charge he told us that this was carrying out research into the insurance provisions. It was pointed out to him that the insurance for this period had been dealt with by the respondent directly with the applicant and that Mr Hua had no involvement in the cover obtained.”
“the repairs and maintenance charges were, in any event, anticipated costs”
“There is no legal justification for the two demands we have been asked to consider”
“There is no legal justification for the two demands we have been asked to consider”
“There was, for example, no management fee or accounting charges. The lease makes no provision for the calculation and or recovery of service charges.”
“It appears that HPM, through Mr Hua are under the misapprehension that this is a lease where service charges can be levied. He is wrong. We are not convinced that he had read the lease, for if he had it should have been clear to him that there was no entitlement to seek to recover the charges as set out in the two demands at paragraph 5 above.”
“He told us that this was the first property he had managed, contrary to the response we have referred to above. If he is intending to pursue a career in Property Management, he would be well advised to undertake some training.”
“We hesitate to describe the actions of Mr Hua as illegal. However, he appears to have taken no cognizance of the lease terms and attempted to include costs which he should have known were not recoverable, the more so at the time that the applicant was seeking to sell.”
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.