LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0479 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0479, decided 12 December 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at The Bagel Factory, White Post Lane, Medola Yard, Rothbury Road, London E9 and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: The Bagel Factory, White Post Lane, Medola Yard, Rothbury Road, London E9
Decision date: 12 December 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HWFI Management Company Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £138,244 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £143,661 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £116,867 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Undisclosed insurance commission, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | — | — | Reduced | Undisclosed insurance commission, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | — | — | Reduced | Undisclosed insurance commission, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-21) | £16,928 | £6,944 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2021-22) | £6,944 | £6,944 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | £3,386 | £3,386 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £18,999.90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2020-21) | £1,900 | £1,900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £14,345 | £14,345 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £79,795 | £79,795 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondents' response, with which the Tribunal agrees, is that the insurance obtained by the Applicants is not comparable with the insurance obtained by the RTM company and it certainly cannot just be applied across the Bagel Factory as if all relevant matters were identical.”
“The Respondents' response, with which the Tribunal agrees, is that the insurance obtained by the Applicants is not comparable with the insurance obtained by the RTM company.”
“There is simply no discrepancy to explain.”
“the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mura's share of the commissions is justified and a reasonable amount would be half of that.”
“the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mura's share of the commissions is justified and a reasonable amount would be half of that.”
“the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mura's share of the commissions is justified and a reasonable amount would be half of that.”
“both statements had extensive exhibits. The documents within the exhibits were not separated out into any logical order or fully indexed in the hearing bundle. Such length and poor organisation make it much more difficult for the Tribunal to prepare for the hearing and for relevant evidence to be identified. The courts keep tight control over the length of witness statements but it should not be thought that the Tribunal's lack of formality is some kind of invitation to break free of such restrictions.”
“The parties' solicitors should take on board the need to focus their clients' case better in future.”
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.