LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0225 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0225, decided 27 October 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 21 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 24 Eglantine Road, London and found largely for the leaseholder: 21 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, 24 Eglantine Road, London
Decision date: 27 October 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2014-2015) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Buildings insurance (2015-2016) | £155.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2016-2017) | £180.54 | £63.19 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2016-2017) | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2016-2017) | £1,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2016-2017) | £474.83 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2017-2018) | — | £184.74 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2017-2018) | £315 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017-2018) | £999.95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Utilities (2017-2018) | — | £128.28 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2018) | £138.21 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2017-2018) | £31.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2018-2019) | — | £193.80 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2018-2019) | £999.95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Utilities (2018-2019) | — | £170.50 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2018-2019) | £218.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | £2,285.55 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020-2021) | £348.25 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Utilities (2020-2021) | — | £183.75 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £332.24 | £236.31 | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-2021) | £42 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Any charges for this accounting year are now irrecoverable (even if belatedly demanded) because they are statute barred and would also be subject to the provisions of s20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”
“The first item on that schedule relates a charge of £155.20 for building insurance in year 2015-2016. Since no demand has been made for that sum it is now irrecoverable by virtue of s20B as above.”
“The Tribunal takes the view that the Applicant should be responsible for some part of this sum and determines her share in accordance with her liability under the lease for 35% of the total charge. This amounts to £63.19 which is due and payable by the Applicant.”
“the Respondent said she had not done so. She is not therefore entitled to include a charge for management fees in the service charge demands. The sum of £250 for 2016-2107 is disallowed in full”
“The lease makes no provision for a sinking fund for future repairs and the sum of £1,000 demanded in the year 2016-2017 is not payable by the Applicant nor recoverable by the Respondent.”
“An unidentified sum of £474.83 included in the 2016-2017 demand is not recoverable because there is no explanation to what it relates.”
“The Respondent had not attended the Case Management Conference on 22 July 2021 and had failed to respond at all to the Tribunal's Directions. The only papers before the Tribunal for the hearing had been compiled by the Applicant. The Respondent had not communicated at all with either the Applicant or her representative or with the Tribunal until the application to adjourn (above) was received two days before the date of the substantive hearing.”
“In the present case the management of the property has been so poor that it is unlikely that the Tribunal would have allowed recovery.”
“The Tribunal did receive and read the Respondent's late email after the hearing and found that it did not specify in detail which charges the Respondent was willing to compromise. Attached to the email were an assorted selection of documents with no explanation as to their purpose. The Tribunal concludes that even had it seen these documents prior to the hearing, they would have been insufficient to persuade the Tribunal that a binding offer to settle the matter had been made.”
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.