LON/00BE/LSC/2022/0157 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2022/0157, decided 5 June 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at 39a Mount Adon Park, London and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 39a Mount Adon Park, London
Decision date: 5 June 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016/17) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | £1,515.28 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | £3,254.22 | £500 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2016/17) | £3,901.41 | £2,301.41 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | £845.56 | £845.56 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016/17) | £5,744.82 | £1,500 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | £198.44 | £198.44 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016/17) | £2,500 | £2,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016/17) | £4,942 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2016/17) | £556.34 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2016/17) | £1,203.83 | £1,203.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016/17) | £708.92 | £708.92 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020/21) | £614.89 | £614.89 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We were provided with no evidence of a survey having been prepared...there is nothing to suggest that anything more than a short list of jobs to be done was ever prepared, and accordingly we disallow this element of expenditure.”
“the quality of the work done under these descriptions was so poor that, inspected today, it was difficult to believe that any work had been done in the recent past.”
“The moderately sized internal communal hallway had been adequately painted, and we allow £500 for that. That is the full extent of service charges reasonably payable under this heading.”
“No charge may reasonably be made under this element of the roof heading [extra scaffolding for chimney stacks]. The sum of £2,301.41 was reasonably incurred in respect of the roof.”
“the Applicant did not make a particularised challenge, and we therefore do not find the sum unreasonable.”
“Taking account of what we could see on the inspection, and doing the best we can applying our general experience and expertise in relation to building costs, we think it reasonable to allow £1,500 for the work that we were able to conclude had been done.”
“This case has taken far too long to come to a conclusion. There have already been two occasions on which a listing for a hearing has been turned into a case management conference as a result of the lack of preparation of the parties, particularly the Respondent. We were not prepared to allow any further delay.”
“The application has been subject to serious and avoidable delay.”
“a charge of this magnitude in respect of these works on this building does appear to us be wholly unreasonable on its face. There is no suggestion that a site office, toilets, supplies of electricity and water or large plant, or fencing etc was actually present or used (and the Applicant's evidence was that none were evident).”
“our overall conclusion following the inspection was that the photographs did give a fair impression of the quality of the work undertaken, with the proviso that, seen together, the quality of the work was, in some respects, if anything worse than we had anticipated from the photographs.”
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.