LON/00BH/LSC/2021/0403 — service charge decision
In LON/00BH/LSC/2021/0403, decided 6 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 278A High Road, Leytonstone, London E11 3HS and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 278A High Road, Leytonstone, London E11 3HS
Decision date: 6 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ascots Property Services / Synergy Home Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £310.16 | £310.16 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £310.18 | £310.18 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £310.22 | £310.22 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £302.11 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £176.73 | £176.73 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £495 | £250 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £295 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £295 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £295 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“£310.16 (for period 1.6.18-31.5.19)... The Tribunal has found that the following insurance premiums are payable: £310.16 (for the 2018/9 service charge year)”
“£310.18 (for period 1.6.19-31.5.20)... The Tribunal has found that the following insurance premiums are payable: £310.18 (2019/20)”
“£310.22 (for period 1.6.20-31.5.21)... The Tribunal has found that the following insurance premiums are payable: £310.22 (2020/1)”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that this demand (if issued) was superseded by the next demand, dated 18 May 2021. The Building was already covered by insurance for the period 23 February to 31 May 2021. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is not payable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that this sum should be included in the accounts for 2021/22. It would only become payable on 24 June 2022.”
“Compared with the cover provided by Aviva, the premium is manifestly unreasonable. The excesses are substantially higher. We would cap the premium at £250 per annum, given the more limited cover.”
“This is yet another case in which the parties have failed to have had adequate regard to the terms of the lease which governs the contractual relationship between landlord and tenant. Any person acquiring any leasehold interest must inform themselves of the terms of the legal interest that they are acquiring. Equally, any landlord issuing legal proceedings for arrears needs to satisfy itself that demands for ground rent and service charges have been made in accordance with the terms of the lease.”
“There is no reason why this application could not have been mediated without lawyers. The Respondent had cleared the arrears of ground rent. Mediation would have provided an opportunity for the parties to explore how the property should be managed, given the complexities of the lease. It is a matter of great regret that the option of mediation was rejected by the Applicant.”
“It ill beheld Ms Wannagat to make this submission, given that the Applicant had issued proceedings without informing themselves as to the terms of the lease.”
“DJ Latham indicated that he considered that the sum claimed for this Notice was manifestly excessive, particularly given the defect in the notice. There was no right to forfeit for the service charge arrears as no relevant Certificates had been issued.”
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.