LON/00BJ/LSC/2022/0074 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2022/0074 & others, decided 3 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat B, 159 Wandsworth High Street, London and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat B, 159 Wandsworth High Street, London
Decision date: 3 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Fountayne Managing Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016/17) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2017/18) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Buildings insurance (2018/19) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2019/20) | £3,200.87 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2020/21) | £5,985.03 | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2020/21) | £1,900 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Dispensation refused, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2016/17) | — | — | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £522 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds that a reasonable, rational and proper apportionment to the respondent, for building insurance and other costs to be relating to the building (prior to construction of Simrose Court) was one-sixth.”
“the Tribunal finds that a reasonable, rational and proper apportionment to the respondent, for building insurance and other costs to be relating to the building (prior to construction of Simrose Court) was one-sixth.”
“the appropriate apportionment of the block insurance cost in relation to the respondent is one-tenth”
“The Tribunal finds (as admitted by Mr Stern) that the property was over insured in 2019/20 and 2020/21. It therefore finds that a pro-rata reduction in recoverable premium is appropriate.”
“The Tribunal finds (as admitted by Mr Stern) that the property was over insured in 2019/20 and 2020/21. It therefore finds that a pro-rata reduction in recoverable premium is appropriate.”
“The Tribunal finds that the cost of the works appears very high. No satisfactory explanation of the great urgency has been provided … absent of any form of consultation or competitive quotation the Tribunal finds that the respondent has suffered significant prejudice.”
“No substantive reply was received. The Tribunal does not accept that the building only contains two flats.”
“it appears that as provided, this is incomplete. The applicant will therefore need to identify relevant disallowed invoices and agree the position with the respondent.”
“The Tribunal is also concerned by the landlords' remarks relating to the high and unexpected cost.”
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.