LON/00BF/LSC/2021/0320 — service charge decision
In LON/00BF/LSC/2021/0320, decided 7 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 2 Albion Court, Albion Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5TB and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 2 Albion Court, Albion Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5TB
Decision date: 7 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group (RMG) Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019-2020) | £11,418 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | £14 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £3,997 | £1,359.46 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-2021) | £260.58 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-2021) | £164.82 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | £2,062 | £1,491.39 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“this sum cannot be raised against the Applicants for the two reasons put forward by the Applicants. 1) It is not recoverable under the lease... 2) Because it is unarguably part of the disputed costs that were included in the settlement agreement.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the absence of a provision enabling a balancing charge of the kind now claimed, in this perhaps slightly antiquated and peculiar lease, precludes recovery of this sum.”
“the Respondent acknowledges that the cost for insuring the common parts of the buildings and public liability insurance for 2020-2021 were £1359.46... the Tribunal is satisfied that the greater figure is not one that can be recovered by the Respondent.”
“The amount demanded plainly is not within that contractual limit, and although there is some specific reservation made in relation to insurance, this sum does not relate to insurance.”
“there is no provision in this lease for provision of a reserve fund. In the absence of provision in the lease for recovery of these sums, the Tribunal finds that they are irrecoverable.”
“however reasonable it may be to obtain such a valuation, there is no provision in the lease for recovery of this sum by way of service charge.”
“He did not dispute that the figure had been well known at the date of the agreement by both sides, nor did he dispute that the figure incorporated a sum referable not only to the common parts but the whole of the building.”
“Mr Amodeo said that he agreed that the lease does not permit the recovery of insurance for the whole of the building and the Respondent would be amending the situation for the future. However, this was a less than complete answer, in the view of the Tribunal, to the point being made.”
“That internal document which is not supplemented by the primary documents upon which it is based, and which was not to the satisfaction of the tribunal clearly explained at the hearing, was not so far as the Tribunal is concerned, helpful for the Respondent.”
“the Applicant, when supplementing his written evidence before the Tribunal, expressed some frustration that notwithstanding the fact that the Applicants had successfully challenged the charging of a figure for the whole building the Applicants were still receiving demands in stark contradiction of that finding.”
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.