LON/00BK/LBC/2024/0021 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LBC/2024/0021, decided 23 September 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 48 Westbourne Court, Orsett Terrace, London W2 6JT and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 48 Westbourne Court, Orsett Terrace, London W2 6JT
Decision date: 23 September 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
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 | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“it is clear that the Respondent added to the Flat and altered its internal layout without seeking the Applicant's consent, in breach of clause 3.7.1.”
“he breached clause 3.7.3 by installing a water appliance despite the existence of a communal hot water system and his failing to seek consent.”
“the Respondent has failed to take any or any effective action to address the water leak from his flat, despite having at least a year to do so.”
“the installation of the new shower room failed to comply with the Building Regulations 2010 which were one of the sets of regulations encompassed within clause 3.5.1.”
“the Applicant was concerned that the Respondent may have cut the structure, perhaps to install ventilation, but they had no evidence of this and conceded that they could not establish such a breach of clause 3.7.”
“He says he had not used a lawyer because this case was so simple, he didn't need one. However, the Respondent gives every impression of not understanding the law or legal proceedings.”
“IPOs are exclusively for the purpose of evicting trespassers but the current occupier is not a trespasser. She was allowed in by the tenant. The Respondent provided no evidence that the sub-tenancy was unlawful but, even if it was, that does not make the sub-tenant a trespasser. If the court is apprised of the facts, the Respondent's application is doomed to fail.”
“He says it did not 'cross his mind' that an electrical certification of the shower room installation would be a relevant document, let alone that he should have disclosed it in advance of the hearing. He did not provide a witness statement.”
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.