Decision summary

LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0063 — service charge decision

In LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0063, decided 25 January 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 37 Langford Court, Abbey Road, London NW8 9DN and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flat 37 Langford Court, Abbey Road, London NW8 9DN
Decision date: 25 January 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Parkgate Aspen.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Management fees (2016-2019)——ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Buildings insurance (2016-2019)——Allowed in full—
Other charges (2016-2019)——Allowed in full—
Cleaning (2016-2019)——Allowed in full—
Gardening & grounds (2016-2019)——Allowed in full—
Repairs & maintenance (2018)——Allowed in full—
Legal & professional costs (2016-2019)——Allowed in full—
Administration charges (2016-2019)£100£100Allowed in full—

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“the tribunal therefore finds that the managing agent fees charged to Mr Syed for the periods 2016, 2017, 2018 and the interim charge of 2019 to be unreasonable and reduces these by £500 over the period claimed to reflect this lack of clarity and the standard of service provided to Mr Sayed in this period.”
On management fees
“The tribunal does not accept Mr Syed's objections to the inclusion of terrorism cover in the buildings insurance and finds in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the insurance of the lifts and boiler/heating apparatus to be reasonable and appropriate.”
On buildings insurance
“The tribunal finds that the provisions of the lease under clause 5(c) allows for the charge of the Directors Insurance to be made to the service charges as it provides for the lessor to insure against third party claims made against the lessor and by extension the applicant RTM Company.”
On other charges
“Mr Syed's objection to cleaning and gardening costs were unsupported by any relevant evidence in the form of alternative or comparable quotations.”
On cleaning
“Mr Syed's objection to cleaning and gardening costs were unsupported by any relevant evidence in the form of alternative or comparable quotations.”
On gardening & grounds
“Mr Unsdorfer also told the tribunal about the works of removal of some asbestos that had been carried out in 2018 for the sum of £12,860 and the preliminary/investigatory steps that had been taken in respect of planned major works in the period 2016 to 2018 for which all invoices had been provided to the respondent.”
On repairs & maintenance
“The tribunal found the widespread and vague objections to the service charges by Mr Syed and Mr Danso to lack substance and often credibility and found that there was little evidence produced in support of them.”
Of Respondent and his witness
“the tribunal found Mr Syed's objections to the service charges in the form of the pro forma tribunal provided Scott Schedule to lack clarity or substance.”
Of Respondent — Scott Schedule objections
“The tribunal finds that Mr Syed has failed to take advantage of these opportunities to inspect the invoices due to his unsupported allegations of racism and harassment.”
Of Respondent — failure to inspect invoices
“the tribunal finds that the applicant failed through its managing agent to submit a potential or exploratory claim on behalf of the respondent and failed to make it clear to Mr Syed in a timely manner that it had not done so.”
Of Managing agent (Parkgate Aspen) — failure to submit insurance claim

Related

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.