LON/00BH/LSC/2022/0286 — service charge decision
In LON/00BH/LSC/2022/0286, decided 2 April 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 26 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2, 3 & 4, 779 High Road, Leytonstone, London and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2, 3 & 4, 779 High Road, Leytonstone, London
Decision date: 2 April 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Fountayne Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £1,947.80 | £369.93 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £2,110.10 | £624.31 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £1,497.46 | £410.15 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | — | £504.17 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | — | £587.18 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2021) | — | £199.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £199.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021) | £3,300 | £80.20 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2022) | £3,300 | £80.20 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2021) | — | £70.28 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £142.41 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £116.10 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | £70.28 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | — | £33.29 | conceded | — |
| Administration charges (2022) | — | £33.29 | conceded | — |
| Utilities (2018) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Utilities (2019) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Utilities (2020) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Utilities (2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Management fees (2018) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Management fees (2019) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Management fees (2020) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The lease was a legally binding document and took precedence over any verbal agreement. The Tribunal therefore determined that the apportionment should take place in accordance with the terms of the lease.”
“The lease was a legally binding document and took precedence over any verbal agreement.”
“The lease was a legally binding document and took precedence over any verbal agreement.”
“the Tribunal made determinations on the insurance amounts payable as follows”
“the Tribunal made determinations on the insurance amounts payable as follows”
“The lease required the Applicants to have an independent accountant to reconcile and certify the accounts. The Applicant had therefore met their obligations in accordance with the lease.”
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.