LON/00BG/LSC/2022/0274 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2022/0274, decided 28 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at Flat 137 Tequila Wharf & Car Park 54, 681 Commercial Road, London E14 7LH and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 137 Tequila Wharf & Car Park 54, 681 Commercial Road, London E14 7LH
Decision date: 28 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: JFM Estate & Block Management LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £36,710 | £36,710 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £483,021.08 | £483,021.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £548,224.80 | £548,224.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £137,450.81 | £137,450.81 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £639 | £639 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £835 | £835 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £1,064 | £1,064 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £1,094 | £1,094 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-20) | £3,600 | £3,600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £3,600 | £3,600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £3,600 | £3,600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £5,000 | £5,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £32,058 | £32,058 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £32,889 | £32,889 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £33,382 | £33,382 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £35,051 | £35,051 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal find that there is no evidence before it of double-charging for either of the periods referred to by Mr Yau”
“the tribunal find that a premium of £483,021.08 was reasonable given the circumstances in which the Respondent found itself on 31 March 2020”
“On the basis of the evidence that the tribunal heard from Mr Morley and Mr Casey the tribunal find that the premiums in each of the years in question were reasonable.”
“On the basis of the evidence that the tribunal heard from Mr Morley and Mr Casey the tribunal find that the premiums in each of the years in question were reasonable.”
“As Mr Yau has not challenged the reasonableness of the premium charged in any year the Tribunal find the premiums charged to be reasonable.”
“Directors' liability insurance — Tribunal find that under clause 4.1(3)(b) reference to 'administration of the Demised Premises and the Estate' entitles the Respondent to charge for directors' liability insurance”
“The Tribunal note with concern that the directors of the Respondent felt that it was appropriate to withhold from the leaseholders the fact that the estate was underinsured.”
“It is regrettable that the Respondent did not provide a Witness Statement. In particular it would have assisted the tribunal if it had provided a clear statement that neither it nor its managing agents had received commission from placing the insurance as it did, more detail as to how it has established the sum for which the estate should be insured (by way of a valuation), and more detail of the steps taken to test the market in each of the disputed years.”
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.