LON/00BK/LAM/2019/0026 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LAM/2019/0026 & others, decided 14 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 10 Eaton Place, London SW1X 8AD and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 10 Eaton Place, London SW1X 8AD
Decision date: 14 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Susan Metcalfe Residential (SMR).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2017) | £2,235 | £2,235 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“this was a matter which had been undertaken probably at the behest of Mrs Scott and it seems to us it ill behoves her now to seek to challenge this expense. The cost is allowed in these circumstances as a service charge.”
“Our construction of paragraph 5.4.8 leads us to the view that the wording contained therein is aimed the maintenance, safety and administration of the building... This clause is on all fours with that which was found in the Sella House case.”
“We accept that the consent of Mrs Scott should have been sought, but it should not be unreasonably withheld. To avoid unnecessary further issues we consider that this expense should be allowed.”
“Mr Dixon appears to have taken a dislike to Mrs Scott without ever having made the effort of meeting with her on a face to face basis to discuss the issues. It may not have resolved the problems but if he could have shown that such an attempt had been made and had been rebuffed by Mrs Scott, then that might have given us some assistance in the route that we would need to follow.”
“Glazier's presentation is done in a way which is standard in the industry and which was adopted by Burlington and continued by us for which often has the effect of confusing tenants and solicitors (for instance the solicitors of incoming tenants who seek service charge information before purchasing) in the way which has happened here.”
“We do think that the imposition of what was, we find, an unrealistic budget figure by Mr Gatto supported by Miss Bakshi was also a cause of the dispute between the parties.”
“It is a sadness that this case has come before the Tribunal. We saw three leaseholders who impressed us with their honesty and their desire to undertaken works to the Property to deal with the external and internal degeneration that has occurred over the years. It is difficult to understand why it has taken from 2014 to 2020 to reach a point where a tender document appears to be acceptable to both sides.”
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.