LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0034 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0034, decided 8 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 16 Westhouse Close, London SW19 6QU and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 16 Westhouse Close, London SW19 6QU
Decision date: 8 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2019-20) | £294 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £41.54 | £20.77 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £2.58 | £2.48 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019-20) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The liability to the Applicant exceeded £250.00 and should have been subject to a s.20 consultation, or a s.20ZA dispensation application to the First-tier Tribunal. The Applicant's liability to pay is capped at £250.00 in terms of those two works orders.”
“The specific issues relating to the above works orders appeared to be duplication of work to two different contractors within a week. The Council could not clarify this issue and Mrs Britton was going to investigate. Without the outcome of that investigation, it did not appear to the Tribunal to be reasonable to make a duplicate charge.”
“There is no evidence that the Council routinely charges leaseholders for cancelled call out charges. This is the only one for the period. The Council has to comply with their obligations under the terms of the lease, and investigating a faulty entry system would form part of their obligation.”
“Estate works, including electrical works: Although this formed part of the application justification, in oral evidence the Applicant confirmed this did not form part of her claim, and that this was provided for example only.”
“It was also noted that it was not until the course of the hearing that the information about the completion dates for both works orders was provided, nor had there been any mention prior to the hearing to the application about the existence of before and after photos of the roof.”
“when asked why she had not provided them before the hearing, Mrs Britton's response was that the applicant had not asked for such evidence.”
“Mrs Britton remained adamant that because the works were raised under separate works orders, despite the complaints having been made within 10 days of each other, that these are separate works, and could not be considered as major works under the terms of s.20.”
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.