LON/00BJ/LSC/2024/0224 — service charge decision
In LON/00BJ/LSC/2024/0224, decided 4 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 15-17 West Hill, London SW18 1RB and found largely for the leaseholder: 19 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, 15-17 West Hill, London SW18 1RB
Decision date: 4 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022/23) | £4,907.90 | £1,615.58 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2023/24) | £5,686.38 | £1,615.58 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Other charges | £250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance | £838.80 | £250 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges | £109 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | £313.90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance | £1,010.32 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance | £3,000 | £1,500 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance | £900 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work |
| Other charges | £2,970 | £750 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance | £2,079.38 | £1,500 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges | £456 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | £480 | £72 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges | £234 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | £144 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Repairs & maintenance | £978 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Gardening & grounds | £60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Management fees (2023/24) | £1,900.80 | £1,425.60 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Cleaning (2023/24) | £1,518.80 | £1,139.10 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The increases in insurance costs claimed by the Respondent are so high that they require explanation. Due to the Respondent's lack of participation, there is no such explanation. The actual insurance premium achieved by the RTM company seems to be the best comparator.”
“The Tribunal determines that the amount for insurance must be limited to £1,615.58 for each of the two years.”
“This description is not illuminating. The charge requires explanation but there is none. It is difficult to see what 'investigation' there could be other than the few seconds it would take Eagerstates themselves to open it and glance inside.”
“At first glance, this seems a high figure for attending to the electrical installation in this building with just 6 flats. This was confirmed by the Applicants obtaining an alternative quote for £250.”
“there would appear to be no inventory to report on. Again, an explanation is required in order to understand this item but none has been forthcoming.”
“these descriptions are not illuminating so that the charges require explanation but there are none … None of the Applicants are aware of anything which would indicate that relevant works has been undertaken.”
“Eagerstates, as is common practice when the Respondent is a party before this Tribunal, appears to have run the litigation on the Respondent's behalf. Although they are not lawyers, they have substantial experience of Tribunal proceedings. They both know what procedure to use and that they ought to use it. The fact that they have failed to do so is significant.”
“The Respondent's only engagement with this case was to make an insufficiently-argued application for an adjournment. Despite being aware of the directions, the Tribunal's practice and procedure and the consequences, the Respondent failed to provide its case or to apply for any amendment to the directions.”
“The Tribunal is left with no realistic choice but to bar the Respondent from further participation in the proceedings. The Tribunal expects and requires its directions to be complied with – if parties were able to flout them, the Tribunal's work would be substantially disrupted, let alone that other parties would be denied justice. If the Tribunal did not bar the Respondent in circumstances as clear as in this case, it is difficult to see when it ever would exercise that power.”
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.