LON/00BG/LSC/2020/0220 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2020/0220 & others, decided 23 August 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 167A Teviot Street, London E14 6PY and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 167A Teviot Street, London E14 6PY
Decision date: 23 August 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2012-13) | — | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2012-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2012-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2012-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2012-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2012-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of the invoices to Asphatic Limited in 2012 – 13 should each be limited to £250”
“The tribunal determines that the remainder of the charges for repairs are payable and reasonable.”
“in relation to caretaking and gardening, whilst the tenant may disagree about the hourly charge and the number of hours of provision, there is nothing to suggest that those charges or the hours provided for are unreasonable.”
“in relation to caretaking and gardening, whilst the tenant may disagree about the hourly charge and the number of hours of provision, there is nothing to suggest that those charges or the hours provided for are unreasonable.”
“The tribunal notes the relatively low charges for aerial maintenance and estate repairs and considers that these amounts are reasonable.”
“none of the general challenges to the service charges are sustainable and that therefore those charges demanded by the landlord are payable and reasonable.”
“The tribunal also notes that several of these challenges were not identified at the time of the application. The tribunal is reluctant to allow the tenant to benefit from what appears to have been a fishing expedition. It notes that the tenant and Mr Tankaria manage leasehold properties and are therefore familiar with service charge demand and collection and would have been fully aware that they should expect to pay service charges for services provided.”
“The tribunal does not accept the evidence of the tenant that a letter was sent containing the necessary documentation. If a letter had been sent then the tribunal considers that it is almost certain that it would have been received by the landlord and dealt with appropriately. It would also have been followed up by the tenant if there was no evidence of receipt of such an important letter.”
“contrary to the tenant's and Mr Tankaria's initial position that the tenant had not seen any notices, Mr Tankaria changed his oral evidence and admitted that he had discussed the demands and notices with his wife (tenant) and she proceeded to set up a direct debit, this position change occurred only after the tribunal directed Mr Tankaria to his own witness statement which stated the same.”
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.