LON/00BG/LSC/2020/0360 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2020/0360, decided 6 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flat 102 Arcus Apartment 39 St Clements Avenue London E3 4SL and reached a mixed result: 13 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 102 Arcus Apartment 39 St Clements Avenue London E3 4SL
Decision date: 6 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Firstport Property Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018/2019) | £1,927.99 | £1,190 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2018/2019) | £609.40 | £219 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2018/2019) | — | £120 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/2019) | £880.76 | £143.96 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018/2019) | £994.18 | £215 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018/2019) | — | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2018/2019) | £1,440 | £300 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018/2019) | £1,100 | £113.36 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018/2019) | £1,265 | £1,000 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2018/2019) | — | £551.76 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Lifts (2018/2019) | — | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/2019) | £900 | £150 | Reduced | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018/2019) | £492.95 | £174.95 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018/2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018/2019) | £1,420 | £200 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The respondent provided no evidence to substantiate the sum demanded by way of insurance premium was reasonable, or as to the risks covered. The tribunal therefore finds the applicant's alternative quote to represent a reasonable sum for the insurance premium.”
“In the absence of evidence from the respondent to support its assertion that the invoices it provided relate to Block A, and given the historic mistakes it has made in misattributing electricity costs to Block A, the tribunal accept the applicant's average electricity figure of £219.”
“the tribunal therefore prefer to accept the documentary evidence in the bundle, the invoice from Hawkey Cleaning and Support Services dated 21 January 2019 that the windows were cleaned, once at a cost of £120.”
“The respondent's present claim for £143.96 is less than that amount and therefore recoverable. This is a proportion of the sum for 'annual bulk clearance' which the tribunal find is a cost covered by the sweeper clause.”
“Of the invoices from Serjeant Security two appear to have been incurred more than 18 months before the sums were demanded… the tribunal find that a reasonable sum would be, say, half this amount, £215.”
“The respondent accepts the applicant's submission that there is no CCTV at Block A and this charge should not have been levied.”
“Unfortunately there is no explanation in Ms Hussain's witness statement about these invoices or whether there were others invoiced earlier in the service charge year. Attached to her witness statement there were also a number of invoices irrelevant to Block A, for example an irrelevant invoice relating to Block G and an irrelevant invoice for maintenance of Block E for £446,40. There were invoices from British Gas for electricity which clearly did not relate to Block A and some where it could not be ascertained whether or not they related to Block A.”
“It is not correct that the sum was only incurred on 30 June 2019. From one of the invoices from British Gas provided by the respondent it would appear that electricity is invoiced six monthly. It is not invoiced annually on 30 June.”
“It would encourage the respondent to consider a more cost efficient system, as a temporary system will not remain a reasonable cost in the long term.”
“That the estimated budget for the managing agents for the year (£1,440) is equivalent to £120 per month indicates that the actual sum (identical to the anticipated sum) appears to be an arbitrary sum determined without reference to the actual management undertaken by the managing agents in relation to the block.”
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.