LON/00BK/LBC/2023/0022 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LBC/2023/0022, decided 15 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 19, Cumberland Court, Great Cumberland Place, London W1H 7DP and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 19, Cumberland Court, Great Cumberland Place, London W1H 7DP
Decision date: 15 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Moreland Estate Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The property has obviously been neglected for many years. The evidence of the Tribunal members' own eyes shows that the property not only has not been decorated within the last 7 years, but also that the walls, particularly the plaster, are out of repair.”
“Clause 3.12 of the lease by removing an internal wall and relocating waste and water pipes through the walls into the new kitchen.”
“the windows have clearly not been cleaned for a very long time and those in the living room are uncovered.”
“there are no carpets on the floors and no evidence that the laminate was duly approved.”
“Clause 3.11 and paragraph 30 of the Fourth Schedule of the lease because a new boiler was installed.”
“there was no evidence of this. Mr Simon pointed to the inconvenience of having to deal with the above breaches but that does not constitute an annoyance as covered by paragraph 5”
“The Respondent has taken little part in the proceedings or even since October 2022 when the Applicant first sought to raise the alleged breaches with him. His Statement of Case presents no positive case and simply puts the Applicant to proof.”
“Mr Strelitz tried to bring up in the hearing for the first time an allegation that paragraph 30 breached the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations by rendering it impossible to replace the boiler. This was much too late to make such a significant allegation and it would have been grossly unfair for the application to have been rejected on this point on this basis.”
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.