Decision summary

LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0428 — service charge decision

In LON/00BJ/LSC/2021/0428, decided 26 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Thurleigh Court, Nightingale Lane, London SW12 8AP and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Thurleigh Court, Nightingale Lane, London SW12 8AP
Decision date: 26 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall & Rittner Limited.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Buildings insurance (2018-19 to 2021-22)Allowed in full
Legal & professional costs (2018-19 to 2021-22)Allowed in full
Cleaning (2018-19 to 2021-22)Allowed in full
Major works (2018-19 to 2021-22)Allowed in full
Management fees (2018-19 to 2021-22)Allowed in full
Other charges (2019)£283.62£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds
Other charges (2018)£3,288£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds
Other charges (2018)£600£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2018)£162£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2019)£9£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2018)£412.51£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds

Section 20C order: conditional.

Key passages (verbatim)

“the items listed to insurance and to the brokers Lockton & Co are all approved as reasonable and payable.”
On buildings insurance
“the Tribunal is satisfied that they are reasonable and payable given the circumstances of the dispute and the rates charged by the solicitor instructed.”
On legal & professional costs
“the Tribunal was satisfied that the work was carried out and that therefore the charges were reasonable and payable.”
On cleaning
“the Tribunal determined that the works were necessary, that it was proportionate to demand the expense in advance and that the cost level was reasonable given the nature of the remedial works required.”
On major works
“the Tribunal were again satisfied as to the reasonableness of these management charges.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal find this total expenditure unreasonable and is therefore disallowed in full.”
On other charges
“The Tribunal were not happy with this explanation or with the expenditure that was largely unexplained and unacceptable.”
Of FairFX PLC charge (para 34(i)) and Rendall & Rittner invoice 56993 (para 34(vi))
“The Tribunal were not happy with the explanation provided at the hearing or with the expenditure that was largely unexplained and unacceptable.”
Of Peer to Peer Practice charge (para 34(ii))

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.