LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0033 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0033, decided 8 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 27 disputed service charge items at 48A and 48B Bow Road, London E3 4DH and reached a mixed result: 18 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 48A and 48B Bow Road, London E3 4DH
Decision date: 8 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2019-20) | £1,270.43 | £200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2020-21) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £886.68 | £200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £230.40 | £230.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019-20) | £45.09 | £45.09 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020-21) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £56.40 | £56.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £54.36 | £54.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | £334.34 | £66.87 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-21) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Gardening & grounds (2021-22) | £252.36 | £50.47 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | £74.20 | £74.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £141.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £69.12 | £69.12 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £47.16 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £20.52 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £220 | £150 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020-21) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £252.36 | £150 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £220 | £200 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £74.16 | £33 | Reduced | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £24.36 | £24.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £167.92 | £69.12 | Reduced | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £114.33 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £118.80 | £118.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £72 | £72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-23) | £1,431 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Without any input from the Respondent the Tribunal is unable to understand the charges for internal cleaning and the reasons for the increase. The charges appear very high for the area requiring cleaning and for the time that has been catalogued as having been spent on cleaning.”
“As no estimates or actuals have been provided for the year 2020-2021 it has determined that as a result of being time expired, there is no charge payable.”
“It considers that an annual charge of £200 per flat is reasonable in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”
“The Tribunal determines that the estimated charge of £230.40 is payable and reasonable.”
“The Tribunal considers that these charges do not appear unreasonable and that as these are payable to an external provider it determines that the charges for electricity for the years 2019 – 2020 and 2021 – 2022 are payable and reasonable.”
“As the Applicant has had no information about the charges for 2020 – 2021, these charges are out of time and therefore are not payable.”
“it is also clear that there have been serious deficiencies in the provision of information and explanation in relation to the service charge regime at the block.”
“It has failed to meet with the Applicant in respect of the service charges and has failed to cooperate with the Tribunal in this dispute.”
“The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has until recently been collecting direct debits from the Applicant. The Tribunal considers that rather than the Applicant being in arrears it is the Respondent that owes money to the Applicant.”
“The tribunal notes that the clerk attempted to contact Mr Khan on 11th July 2023, the day after the application was heard, on the number Mr Khan left on 10th July 2023. She rang at 9.45, 12.39 and 15.36. There was no response to any of her calls.”
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.