LON/00BJ/LSC/2022/0202 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2022/0202, decided 30 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 4 Foundry Mews Putney Bridge Road, London SW15 2NY and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 4 Foundry Mews Putney Bridge Road, London SW15 2NY
Decision date: 30 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Property (Mr S Wiles, Managing Director).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“In neither case did she adduce evidence to substantiate her concerns nor had she produced any alternative quotations for the works... the Tribunal finds these sums reasonable and payable.”
“In the absence of evidence to the contrary the Tribunal finds these sums reasonable and payable.”
“the sum attributable to that part of the contract was recredited to her account (page 97). This item is therefore not in dispute.”
“The sum charged to the service charge account for this item was re-credited to the Respondent and no further charge for this item had been levied since. This item is not therefore in dispute.”
“She agreed however, that she was liable to pay her contribution towards it (page 137) and had not challenged the amount.”
“The Tribunal was unable to place great reliance on this statement because its contents did not address the issues which were relevant to the matters under discussion before the Tribunal.”
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.