LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0173 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0173, decided 9 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 27 Sherwood Court, Bryanston Place, London W1H 5FE and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 27 Sherwood Court, Bryanston Place, London W1H 5FE
Decision date: 9 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Parkgate Aspen.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £216 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £1,223 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the managing agents should have been aware of the lease terms, and should have provided advice to the landlord, without the need for involving solicitors. We therefore disallow this claim in full”
“a managing agent should be able to deal with customer complaints themselves without resorting to instructing solicitors, and that this would come within the normal management fee. We therefore disallow this part of the claim.”
“the tribunal is satisfied that the landlord was entitled to take action to recover the arrears, but that had the managing agents dealt with matters in a more timely manner there would not have been a dispute about reserve fund contributions.”
“the managing agents should have been aware of the lease terms, and should have provided advice to the landlord, without the need for involving solicitors.”
“a managing agent should be able to deal with customer complaints themselves without resorting to instructing solicitors, and that this would come within the normal management fee.”
“The respondents did not attempt to resolve the matter prior to the hearing because they did not respond to the applicants e-mail enquiries regarding the costs sought by the respondents.”
“The respondents also failed to attend the case management conference on 3 September 2020, thereby preventing any potential settlement of the matters under dispute.”
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.