LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0244 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0244, decided 8 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 26 Andersens Wharf, 20 Copenhagen Place, London E14 7DX and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 26 Andersens Wharf, 20 Copenhagen Place, London E14 7DX
Decision date: 8 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Property Management (Mr Wiles).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £331 | £331 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal has decided that it is not appropriate for it to interfere with the service charges by reducing any items as it has determined that the service charges are reasonable and payable”
“the Tribunal has decided that it is not appropriate for it to interfere with the service charges by reducing any items as it has determined that the service charges are reasonable and payable”
“the service charges are reasonable and payable for the years 2019/20 and for 2020/21 and 2021/22, in which the landlord has followed the same approach”
“this was for preliminary work on the roof terrace such as removing the covering and scaffolding, a breakdown of the work which was undertaken, and the cost was provided as an appendix to the Scott Schedule”
“the Respondent subject to consultation could make improvements such as the 'Gating Project' on the estate”
“the Tribunal fully understood Mr Upton's concerns, and is disappointed with the approach which has thus far been adopted by the Tenants' Management Company.”
“The Tribunal were concerned that the forecast for the reserve, have not been prepared on the basis of a professional survey, such as a ten – 15-year plan, carried out by a building surveyor. This would provide the Respondent and the leaseholders with knowledge and information upon which reasoned assessments could be made concerning capital projects. The Tribunal is also concerned that the headings for the service charge items are very general, and as such this required clarification from Mr Wiles, one example was for the external painting. The Tribunal would expect that the accounts and the budget should more accurately reflect expenditure which has occurred in the actual building.”
“the tribunal considers that the Respondent ought to have taken steps to provide Mr Upton with information, and that had this been provided, it would have avoided the need for 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.