LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0453 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0453, decided 27 June 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-7 and 9, 40 Bow Common Lane, London E3 4AX and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-7 and 9, 40 Bow Common Lane, London E3 4AX
Decision date: 27 June 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lifts (2021) | £2,994 | £2,994 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | £504 | £504 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £1,260 | £630 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £4,200 | £4,200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £5,400 | £5,400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £204 | £204 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £526 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,170 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £2,220 | £1,140 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £2,160 | £1,200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £216 | £216 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £2,178 | £426 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £733 | £165.17 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £1,650 | £1,650 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that it was reasonable for the respondent to have entered into a maintenance contract in respect of lift maintenance and that the cost of this contract, in the absence of any challenge as to the contract sum, is reasonable.”
“The tribunal find that a 15% fee for fees in connection with consultation to be reasonable, given the likely amount of work involved and the absence of any alternative quote.”
“The tribunal find that there is duplication in the work undertaken by JMC evidenced in those invoices. The tribunal find that given JMC's familiarity with the property it would have been reasonable for them to have charged for three and a half hours' work, not seven.”
“The tribunal finds the Trident fee, of £2,300 plus VAT (for survey fee and report) and £1,200 plus VAT for scaffolding, etc. to be reasonable.”
“The tribunal finds the Pyrosafety fee of £4,500 plus VAT for preparing a report and EWS 1 form to be reasonable.”
“In the Scott Schedule the applicants accepted the charge for drain cleaning.”
“The tribunal find that the invoice provided by the respondent contains insufficient detail and the respondent was not assisted by Mr Gurvits not attending the hearing.”
“There was no evidence before the tribunal that it had done so and Mr Gurvits did not attend the hearing and the tribunal were therefore unable to question him about this. In the circumstances the tribunal find that it is unreasonable of the respondent to remedy its absence at the tenants' cost.”
“It is not sufficient simply to include an invoice in the bundle, and in the absence of Mr Gurvits from the hearing the tribunal were unable to clarify how these costs were incurred.”
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.