LON/00BH/LSC/2021/0042 — service charge decision
In LON/00BH/LSC/2021/0042, decided 19 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 65 Hainault Road, Leytonstone, London E11 1EA and gave a decision: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 65 Hainault Road, Leytonstone, London E11 1EA
Decision date: 19 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ellis & Co..
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016) | £1,590 | £600 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2017) | £1,482 | £870 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018) | £1,947 | £1,254 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019) | £3,037.27 | £1,341.48 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020) | £841 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2016-2019) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2016-2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“2016 1,590.00 (p 91) 600.00”
“2017 1,482.00 (p 95) 870.00”
“2018 1,947.00 (p 101) 1,254.00”
“2019 3,037.27 (p 105) 1,341.48”
“at least £841.00 has been paid on account of service charges for 2020… should also be refunded as no justification has been given for this figure”
“no more than £200 including VAT was reasonable… Tribunal concludes (a) that the costs of management of the residential part of the building for all of the relevant period should be £600 per annum including VAT”
“The evidence also shows that the cleaners themselves in 2019 could not find power and therefore just told either their office or the managing agent at the time that they could not do the cleaning. Despite that, the cleaning companies still charged and were paid.”
“She apologized if that was not sufficient although this does not absolve the Respondent from its liability to assist the Tribunal.”
“The previous managing agents were charging about £1,200 per annum including VAT and this was increasing. Despite the complaints of the Applicants, some management was taking place but certainly not sufficient to justify £400 per flat.”
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.