LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0436 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2021/0436, decided 7 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 26b Doddington Grove, London and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 26b Doddington Grove, London
Decision date: 7 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | £568 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | £1,576 | £1,576 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | £875 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | £1,743 | £1,593 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2018/19) | £1,187 | £593.50 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mr Cremin, conceded on items (i) gutter repairs (£568) … the sums claimed under those two headings are not chargeable to the Applicant.”
“The costs of repairing the path, and consequential costs relating to the fence, were payable and reasonably incurred (£1,576).”
“it was only because the Respondent failed to properly apply its own systems or policies that the Applicant was charged. In our view, in those circumstances, it cannot be said that the Respondent's process in arriving at the charge was a reasonable one, and accordingly the charge itself is unreasonable.”
“Mr Cremin, conceded on … (iv) upgrading of French doors (£875) … the sums claimed under those two headings are not chargeable to the Applicant.”
“The costs of the FRA works are reasonable and payable in full, except for the laying of the vinyl in the communal hall (£1,743).”
“The work undertaken as part of the major works contract on the windows was not reasonable in quality. A reasonable charge would have been half of that which was in fact charged (£593.50).”
“Although it does not appear that the Respondent gave proper thought to whether they should seek to hold Mr Fret responsible for the damage at the time of the repair, we consider that, had they done so, they could reasonably have come to the conclusion that that was not an appropriate course of action.”
“it was only because the Respondent failed to properly apply its own systems or policies that the Applicant was charged.”
“We doubt that the approach of the Respondent to practical completion is in line with usual practice.”
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.