LON/00BK/LLE/2021/0005 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LLE/2021/0005 & others, decided 9 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Fitzroy Place, London W1 (including Apt 705, 5 Pearson Square, Fitzroy Place) and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Fitzroy Place, London W1 (including Apt 705, 5 Pearson Square, Fitzroy Place)
Decision date: 9 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall & Rittner.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-01-01 to 2020-05-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicants' methodology for the apportionment of the Estate Service Charges is not in accordance with the terms of the private residential leases”
“there was simply not sufficient evidence to reach a finding that allocating the costs to the Estate Service Charge was inappropriate”
“there was not sufficient evidence to displace the submission that the costs are properly allocated to the Estate Service Charge for the purposes of apportionment”
“the Applicants are not required to bear any shortfall for costs by virtue of the fact that the Education Facility is not required to contribute to such costs”
“the tribunal rejects the challenge to this head of costs on the question of principle”
“the leaseholders are liable to pay towards these items under the terms of the residential leases”
“This aspect of the proceedings is troubling. While it might not have formed part of the Applicants' pleading, the tribunal had nevertheless been asked to make a finding on the correct basis of measurement (NIA or GIA). This was presented as a matter of contractual interpretation. But to construe that part of the clause, it is necessary for the tribunal to look at the clause as a whole and indeed the wider contract. If the tribunal were to make a finding on one part of the clause while knowing that it was part of a wider issue as to whether the Applicants' apportionment was in accordance with the lease, it would make such finding either of little or no value or, worse, potentially misleading if and to the extent that it did not reflect the wider reality.”
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.