LON/00BK/LAC/2020/0016 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LAC/2020/0016, decided 29 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at Flat 1B, 22/23 Hyde Park Place, London W2 2LP and reached a mixed result: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1B, 22/23 Hyde Park Place, London W2 2LP
Decision date: 29 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Fresh.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-2020) | — | £637.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £958.63 | £958.63 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £1,233.74 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £2,037.36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £1,314 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019) | £870.30 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £2,418 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £1,200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £1,200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £1,200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £1,800 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £1,800 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £1,800 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £8,160 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020) | £1,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020) | £1,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the reserve/sinking fund charges are reasonable and payable at the increased level of £637.50 per quarter”
“the balancing charge is correct and reasonable and therefore properly payable by the applicant without deduction”
“These cannot possibly have been incurred by the respondent in "proper contemplation" of forfeiture of the applicant's lease as they seem more concerned with ascertaining and remedying water leaks”
“the second is for a reinspection in relation to waterproofing in the sum of £2037.36. These cannot possibly have been incurred by the respondent in "proper contemplation" of forfeiture”
“The Tribunal therefore disallows all the legal bills and finds them unreasonable administration charges that are not payable by the applicant.”
“The Tribunal could find no link to the requirements of the lease for an administration charge and therefore this amount is disallowed in full.”
“In all this large volume of evidence, (the trial bundle stretched over 727 pages), there were just three limited specific references to possible forfeiture amongst the welter of other allegations, assertions and disputes. The references themselves are of limited value in the context of the other documentation. There was nothing very convincing that the Tribunal could identify that might persuade them that there was a proper contemplation of forfeiture.”
“You cannot offer a new lease and meanwhile apparently contemplate forfeiture.”
“In March 2020, the applicant asked for a copy of that advice. Apparently, this was initially refused, disclosing it only on 29 May 2020 but without key attachments. Eventually a direction had to be obtained from Judge Donegan at the Case Management Hearing on 20 September 2020 requiring full disclosure, which the respondent complied with on 20 October 2020.”
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.