LON/00BJ/LSC/2020/0225 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2020/0225, decided 31 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Rear Flat 42 Lavender Hill, London SW11 5RL and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Rear Flat 42 Lavender Hill, London SW11 5RL
Decision date: 31 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: ABC.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2015) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Buildings insurance (2016) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2015-2016) | £1,440 | £1,440 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2015-2020) | — | — | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2015-2016) | — | — | Reduced | — |
| Administration charges (2015-2016) | £75 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2015-2020) | £2,160 | £2,160 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2015-2020) | £176.40 | £176.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“There was apparently no demand made for insurance in 2015 and therefore those sums cannot be due.”
“Other than that the insurance charges appear to the tribunal to be reasonable. The Applicants did not put forward any comparable to support their proposition that the insurance charges were not reasonable.”
“The Tribunal consider that the management fee was reasonable throughout the period. The Applicants failed to provide any comparables to suggest otherwise.”
“It is the Tribunal's determination that the repairs and maintenance charges were reasonable.”
“There was no provision in the lease allowing collection for a reserve fund (conceded by the Respondents).”
“A contingency is in fact a just in case amount. It is not unusual for such sums to be collected as part of the service charge. In this case the service charge provisions are wide enough to include contingency sums.”
“The Tribunal became increasingly frustrated during the preparation of the case for hearing because the parties were unable to agree anything.”
“In passing the tribunal finds this remarkable. Patently some sums were due and it was incumbent on the Applicants to pay the sums that they considered where owing.”
“The Applicants have largely been unsuccessful in this application.”
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.