LON/00BJ/LSC/2024/0182 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2024/0182, decided 12 December 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 24 disputed service charge items at 40 Oakhill Road, Putney, London SW15 2QR and reached a mixed result: 20 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 40 Oakhill Road, Putney, London SW15 2QR
Decision date: 12 December 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: George Protopapadakis.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2020/21) | £390 | £44.35 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2020/21) | £1,400 | £624 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020/21) | £160 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £1,700 | £800 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £730 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2020/21) | £611.70 | £611.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021/22) | £247.11 | £35.41 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2021/22) | £910 | £624 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2021/22) | £910 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22) | £160 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £1,900 | £800 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22) | £150 | £150 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021/22) | £574.78 | £574.78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022/23) | £239.46 | £33.23 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2022/23) | £875 | £624 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022/23) | £875 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Other charges (2022/23) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/23) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Management fees (2022/23) | £1,900 | £800 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2022/23) | £750 | £500 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Buildings insurance (2022/23) | £651.01 | £651.01 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/23) | £150 | £60 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“For the invoice BL219 11 for 2021 only the electricity charges for the communal lights and alarm are allowed. All other electricity charges are disallowed.”
“The tribunal acknowledge some cleaning and tidying of the front yard is necessary. The determine 1 hour per week of time at an hourly charge of £12.00. The annual charge allowed is £624.”
“The Tribunal is not persuaded that the gutter cleaning with manhole chamber inspection is required twice per year. This charge is disallowed.”
“These charges were inadequately justified by the Respondent. The hourly rate proposed at £98 for undertaking the work was deemed excessive. The Tribunal disallow this charge.”
“The Tribunal recognise the Respondent provides a basic property management facility. The Tribunal has determined a fee of £400 per unit per annum is reasonable and payable for the service provided.”
“The Tribunal does not accept that it is appropriate for these works to be carried out by a non-qualified technician. The proposed charges are disallowed.”
“The lack of understanding on the part of the Respondent, as to the basic requirements of property management was disappointing to the Tribunal.”
“it was wholly inappropriate for such works to be carried out by the Respondent who was neither qualified nor skilled and therefore unable to provide adequate certification through an accredited body (i.e. NICEIC or NAPIT in respect of electrical works and BAFE in the case of fire extinguisher service engineers).”
“Judge Hamilton-Farey gave further Directions to the parties on 21 November 2024, in which she was critical of the piecemeal delivery of the information sought by Tribunal by the Respondent.”
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.