LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0007 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0007, decided 13 September 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 21 Heathview Court, Parkside, London SW19 5NL and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 21 Heathview Court, Parkside, London SW19 5NL
Decision date: 13 September 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Diamond Managing Agents.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019) | £268 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £630 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £144 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £648 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019) | £330 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Administration charges (2019) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £906.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“It appears to the tribunal that the amount may well have fallen under paragraph 24 of the Third Schedule but this was never put to the applicants and therefore they were not able to argue in response”
“The various costs were not charged because of works necessitated or contributed by any act of negligence or default of the applicants. They were works arising from Ms Gell authorising the surveyor the roofer and the builder to check that there was no water ingress from the roof.”
“The tribunal determines that the various charges for the roof inspection are not chargeable under paragraph 24 of the Third Schedule to the lease.”
“The tribunal determines that the various charges for the roof inspection are not chargeable under paragraph 24 of the Third Schedule to the lease.”
“It does not appear to the tribunal that there is a clause in that contract which entitles the managing agent to charge for the administration of the emergency plumbing works over and above the standard fee.”
“The tribunal has considered the contract between the management company and the respondent and there appears to be no clause in that agreement which entitles the managing agents to charge for this service over and above the standard fee.”
“It finds Ms Gell's evidence to be confused and incoherent. For instance, the email she sent Mr Ross on 28th February 2019 does not explain what was obstructing access to the applicants' property. The email of 13th March does not clearly say what invoices will be required for settlement which meant it was open to Mr Harris to interpret that email as referring to the costs of repairing the leaking WC cistern.”
“When the tribunal asked Ms Gell what she thought the cause of the water stains to the applicants' flat was, she replied that they were the result of condensation. That is not a credible explanation for stains that are not in the same room as the leaking cistern and are at a higher rather than a lower height. The tribunal notes that Ms Gell did not herself inspect the property at any stage.”
“As the tribunal has already made clear Ms Gell was mistaken in her understanding of the terms of the lease. She was not able to issue instructions for those works to be paid for by the applicants if they proved not to be necessary. She was only able to instruct for them to be carried out if they were to be paid for collectively by the lessees or if they fell within the remit of paragraph 24 of the Third Schedule.”
“The claim has been misconceived. The sums demanded were not recoverable as service charges and therefore the costs are not reasonable.”
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.