LON/00BJ/LSC/2023/0414 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2023/0414, decided 19 June 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flats A, B and C, 635 Garrett Lane, London, SW18 4SX and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats A, B and C, 635 Garrett Lane, London, SW18 4SX
Decision date: 19 June 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: ABC (Agents).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £5,664 | £5,664 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £350 | £350 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Major works (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The amounts demanded varied between £1,000 and £2,500 which, given the age and type of the building of which the property forms part, the Tribunal finds to be reasonable in amount.”
“it is clear from a review of the wording of the lease (page 89), by reference to the plan showing the extent of the 'building', and photographs of the property in the hearing bundle, firstly that the area comprising the ground floor toilet is undoubtedly an integral part of the building”
“the charge for the cleaners was only £55 per month, including £11 VAT (equating to about £22 per hour) which the Tribunal does not find to be unreasonable for the amount of work said to be done.”
“It is normal and proper practice for a managing agent to engage accountants and auditors whose fees are therefore a legitimate service charge item.”
“The Applicants asserted that a charge of £350 for communal electricity was excessive but did not bring any evidence to support that assertion, in the absence of which the Tribunal is unable to determine that the charge is unreasonable.”
“Both of these items fall into the category of expense which a landlord needs to pay and to be able to charge back to the tenants as part of the general service charge. The Tribunal does not find either of the charges to be unreasonable.”
“The Tribunal considers that many of the issues which have been the subject of this application would either not have arisen at all or could have been resolved without recourse to litigation if the Respondent's descriptions of works done had been more accurately expressed in their demands. The expression 'general works and repairs' is meaningless unless accompanied by some explanation of what works had been carried out or were likely to be carried out within that generic category. Their Response to the Tribunal application could also have been more clearly expressed in that at no stage have they produced any invoices or receipts to validate the items listed in the service charge demands.”
“The Tribunal finds Mr Davidoff's answer reflects the Applicants' complaint that they experienced difficulty in getting the Respondent to respond to queries.”
“Both Respondents and their managing agents are property professionals who the Tribunal would have expected to understand that the provision of full and clear information to the tenants assists both the Applicants and the Tribunal to resolve the issues between the parties.”
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.