LON/00BK/LLE/2021/0005 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LLE/2021/0005, decided 3 September 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Fitzroy Place, London W1 (including Apt 705, 5 Pearson Square, Fitzroy Place, W1T 3BQ) and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Fitzroy Place, London W1 (including Apt 705, 5 Pearson Square, Fitzroy Place, W1T 3BQ)
Decision date: 3 September 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall & Rittner (current); Qube (previous residential); JLL (previous estate/commercial).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2016-2020) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2015-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2015-2020) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016-2020) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2016-2020) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we agree with the Respondents' arguments as set out above that the cost of a security manager was excessive … we disallow the costs of a security manager … we determine that the security costs should be reduced by 13% for each of the service charge years in question.”
“Although contained in the List of Issues, there was no challenge during the hearing to insurance costs. In the circumstances, we find that the same were reasonably incurred.”
“We agree with the Applicants as to the number of cleaners required and accept Ms Hares's evidence. We also accept that the level of costs was reasonable … In the circumstances, the costs are allowed in full.”
“we allow the management fees for the service charge years in question. In the circumstances, we determine that the costs are allowed in full.”
“subject to one point, the costs are allowed in full. The one exception is the reference to overcharging by JLL. According to Mr Willis's statement, the agreed errors by JLL totals £45,756.”
“There was little reference to such head of costs during the course of evidence or submissions. In the circumstances, the costs are allowed in full.”
“certain employees of JLL who had signed contracts with service providers which were now the subject of a dispensation application, were still employed by JLL but had not provided witness evidence to the tribunal.”
“it is not then satisfactory to ask the tribunal to determine that they are not by only providing part of the documentation. Moreover, in many cases, the PSCs that have been provided significantly post-date the start date of services, with the result that the precise nature of the contractual arrangement as at the date services commenced becomes far more difficult to ascertain.”
“it was accepted on behalf of the Applicants that the documentary evidence, in particular contracts and invoices, was far from complete.”
“Although it became apparent, as noted above, that certain of the JLL individuals who had signed PSCs were still employed at JLL, they were not called to give evidence despite the fact that this might have provided clarification as to what had happened.”
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.