LON/00BJ/LSC/2020/0334 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2020/0334, decided 18 June 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 20 Doverhouse Road, Putney, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 20 Doverhouse Road, Putney, London
Decision date: 18 June 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Housing Contract Services (in-house).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016/2018) | £6,705 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2016/2018) | £9,000 | £9,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016/2018) | £2,800 | £2,800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/2018) | £475 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2016/2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016/2018) | — | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the standard range for expenditure on preliminaries is 10% to 15%. At 17% (strictly, 16.98%), the figure for preliminaries ... is substantially above the top limit of that range.”
“The costs of construction of the balcony referable to the service charge were reasonably incurred.”
“The cost of demolition of the old balcony and removal of the waste material, including the railings, referable to the service charge, was reasonably incurred.”
“The service charge referable to the relaying of the decking was not reasonably incurred. A cost half that expended would be reasonable and should be substituted.”
“The cost of consultants and management fees referable to the service charge were reasonably incurred.”
“non-chargeable amounts relating to decking in the garden of another flat (number 22), the painting of a demised door, and associated concrete threshold repairs, and some fencing repairs. A credit ... had accordingly been made in the sum of £300.31.”
“it appears to us that a clear explanation of these figures was only forthcoming as a result of this application being made. We have seen in the bundle a (significantly interrupted) email exchange between the Applicant and the Respondent's consultation manager during which the applicant was not provided with a clear understanding of the basis of these costs.”
“Without detailed analysis, we think it appropriate to record our general view that the explanations offered to the Applicant lacked clarity. It was clear, in our view, that it was only the fact that she entered on these proceedings that resulted in the Respondent giving due attention to the issues she raised.”
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.