LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0026 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0026, decided 5 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at 54 Arbour Square, London, E1 0PS and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 54 Arbour Square, London, E1 0PS
Decision date: 5 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2015/6) | £157.13 | £157.13 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2016/7) | £161.99 | £161.99 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017/8) | £200.85 | £200.85 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017/8) | £468.32 | £234.16 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary |
| Buildings insurance (2018/9) | £372.54 | £372.54 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019/20) | £376.91 | £376.91 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/20) | £250 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2020/1) | £398.52 | £398.52 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020/1) | £202 | £202 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021/2) | £410.47 | £410.47 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/2) | £203.85 | £203.85 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The applicant accepted that the insurance premium of £157.13 was reasonable.”
“The applicant accepted that the insurance premium of £161.99 was reasonable.”
“The applicant accepted that the insurance premium of £200.85 was reasonable.”
“a proper repair was not executed and reduce the sum demanded by 50% to £234.16”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that the premiums are reasonable, albeit that there has been a significant increase between 2018 and 2019.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that the premiums are reasonable”
“This is not acceptable, even for a litigant in person. It is for an applicant to identify the issues that it requires a tribunal to determine. These should have been identified in the application form or pursuant to the Directions.”
“These could, and should, have been produced at the hearing.”
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.