LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0168 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0168, decided 29 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 155/163 Balham Hill, SW12 9DJ and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 155/163 Balham Hill, SW12 9DJ
Decision date: 29 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: ABC Estates.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2022) | £17,650 | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2019-2022) | £12,900 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Duplication of charges |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £840 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“I therefore find that on the evidence, the contractual clause is not engaged in this case.”
“In the circumstances, I refuse in its entirety Mr Davidoff's claim for the £12,900 sought.”
“there is no claim on the Particulars for a separate £250 in connection with PDC's 'administration charges', nor has Mr Davidoff set out any basis for recovery of such a sum or a determination of it by the Tribunal. Any such determination is refused.”
“There appears to me no foundation in the fixed costs regime for PDC Law's costs on the claim form of £840. Neither is it explained where that sum comes from.”
“As can be seen, Mr Davidoff made no submissions on the Claimant's contractual right of recovery of costs beyond PDC 'would have relied on section 146 notice in the lease' on behalf of the Claimant/Applicant. His submissions do no more than merely assert that the costs can therefore be recovered by reference to Chaplair v Kumari and duplicate pages from the White Book. He took no opportunity to address the alternative bases on which a costs order might be made, despite the specific directions to do so.”
“As can be seen from the figures above, and the conflicting information provided, the paperwork provided for summary assessment of the quantum of any costs is woeful. As we had cause to observe in our decision on liability, that has been the case in preparation of the Claimant/Applicant's case as a whole.”
“on behalf of the Defendant Mr Eastman (who insists on calling himself an attorney, though as the panel observed previously, Mr Eastman is a CILEX authorised advocate, and he does not conduct this litigation, which is the job of his instructing solicitors) filed 13 pages of Respondent's Costs Submissions, which was prolix and unfocussed on the issues.”
“Amongst those authorities were included 2 articles from Nearly Legal, which Mr Eastman names as 'persuasive academic authority' in his Certificate. With no disrespect to Mr Peaker, to whose blog I confess to being a subscriber, and who I strongly suspect would agree with me in this assessment, Nearly Legal blog posts are not academic authority. They are the thoughts and case analysis of a housing practitioner (unquestionably an experienced one), with no peer review or QA process.”
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.