LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0123 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0123, decided 27 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at Orwell Studios, Market Place, London W1W 8AL and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Orwell Studios, Market Place, London W1W 8AL
Decision date: 27 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Fresson and Tee Limited (F&T), latterly Burlington Estates from 15 May 2020.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2014) | £626.72 | £626.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2014) | £3,015.83 | £3,015.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2014) | £1,067.44 | £1,067.44 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014) | £1,297.19 | £1,297.19 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2014) | £1,316.63 | £1,316.63 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014) | £7,543.68 | £7,543.68 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2014) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015) | £798.26 | £798.26 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2015) | £5,719.90 | — | conceded | No Section 20 consultation |
| Major works (2016) | £79,200.03 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2016) | £9,423.24 | £9,423.24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017) | £3,156.61 | £3,156.61 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017) | £367,995.20 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | £4,312.08 | £4,312.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | £6,744 | £6,744 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018) | £260,517.24 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £1,475 | — | Allowed in full | Apportionment error |
| Major works (2020) | £30,694 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The agreement provides that these fees can be charged and we see no need to disallow them”
“For this year the total cost for this element appears to come to £2,372.04, of which the residential element is £557.66. This does not seem disproportionate when one considers the extent of the tasks undertaken... The sum claimed is allowed.”
“It is, we understand accepted that this is not a QLTA. The lease At 5(3)(d)(ii) allows the employment of other professional persons... Therefore this charge is allowable.”
“We were told that G4S hold keys for out of hours access and the sum claimed is, we find reasonable. We were told that MFM do not make any mark up on this fee.”
“This is not a QLTA as per the agreement at page 1738 of the second bundle... The sums claimed are allowed”
“having seen the videos of the building and the substantial plant and equipment an M & E contract appears to be a reasonable step to take... We find this to be a reasonable charge.”
“We find that absence concerning.”
“Again, an example of the Applicants not following the directions.”
“This is another example of a complaint but a failure by the Applicants to address the requirements of the directions to clearly set out what is in dispute and what they would pay for such a service.”
“it was not until Mr Bates' closing submission that the true colours of the Applicant's case came to light.”
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.