LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0039 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0039, decided 2 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at The Switch House, 4 Blackwall Way, London E14 9QS and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: The Switch House, 4 Blackwall Way, London E14 9QS
Decision date: 2 November 2022
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2018-2020) | £5,520 | £2,760 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2018-2020) | £1,205.50 | £803.65 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2018-2020) | £69,136.85 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“It was apparent that the use of abseiling contractors was more for the convenience of the respondent when considering access to the flats as work could be carried out without the need to involve flat owners affording access through their flats.”
“this Tribunal prefers the evidence from the respondent regarding the second issue and accepts that the work was done and that the reasonable charge for the work was indeed £803.65 and this sum is properly payable.”
“The applicants in this case have applied for a determination of the reasonableness and payability of service charges from 2018-2020 largely relating to major works for roof repairs which are in the sum of £69,136.85”
“Counsel for the respondent admitted at the hearing that this had not been done and that reserve funds were wrongly mixed up with all other funds paid as service charges. This is a breach of the lease and is in the view of the Tribunal an obvious example of bad management.”
“Counsel for the respondent admitted at the hearing that this had not been done and that reserve funds were wrongly mixed up with all other funds paid as service charges. This is a breach of the lease and is in the view of the Tribunal an obvious example of bad management.”
“When supplying accounts every year, the respondent repeatedly failed to include any accounts for a reserve fund, from which it says the repairs were mostly funded. This failure alone would be enough to persuade the Tribunal that this s20c order should be made.”
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.