LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0148 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0148, decided 2 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 15-17 West Hill, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 15-17 West Hill, London
Decision date: 2 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £1,996.48 | £998.26 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £1,000 | £800 | Reduced | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £1,892 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The landlord has not adduced evidence of having properly tested the market. We allow £998.26 under this item.”
“£400 is well within the landlord's discretion when budgeting.”
“On learning this the tenants abandoned their objection to the figure of £150.”
“£300 is a reasonable budgeted figure for drains, regardless of how the landlord in fact proposed to spend the money. We disallow nothing.”
“as a budgeted figure there is no proper basis for challenging the £200 figure. We disallow nothing.”
“The parties agreed a figure of £800 for this item and also agreed that a survey need only be carried out every five years.”
“The landlord, however, failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions. On 13th October 2021 the Tribunal debarred the landlord from relying on any evidence other than that submitted on 19th July 2021. A subsequent application for relief from sanctions was refused.”
“The landlord's concession of 30 per cent seems arbitrary.”
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.