LON/00BK/LBC/2023/0071 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LBC/2023/0071, decided 30 April 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Lower Ground Floor Flat, 47 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6LE and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Lower Ground Floor Flat, 47 Harewood Avenue, London NW1 6LE
Decision date: 30 April 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML Ltd (then Wilmots from mid-2023).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | 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 |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“In breach of clause 7.1 of the Lease, the Respondent failed to maintain the flat in good and substantial repair and condition. The refurbishment works have not been completed.”
“In breach of Clause 8.1 of the lease the Respondent has completely replaced the ceiling with plasterboard attached to a metal frame … and has replaced the lighting with recessed lighting installed into the ceiling.”
“In breach of Clause 11.6 of the lease the Respondent has sublet the premises without the landlord's prior consent.”
“In breach of clause 12.2 of the lease the Respondent failed to serve the Applicant with a copy of the notice of revocation served on him by Westminster City Council dated 29 November 2022.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Respondent removed the 'L' shaped wall as asserted by the Applicant. We accept the Respondent's evidence that the wall was not present when he purchased the flat in 2006.”
“We are not satisfied that the works set out at paragraph 9(iii)(d) to (h) above were alterations done without consent. The Respondent had implied consent.”
“He confirmed that he had not asked HML directly whether the Respondent had informed them of or sought permission for the works which are the primary focus of this application. He had assumed that the Respondent had not sought permission in respect of the works because HML had not informed the Applicant of any such request.”
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.