LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0244 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0244, decided 22 February 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat A, 141 Randolph Avenue, London W9 1DN and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat A, 141 Randolph Avenue, London W9 1DN
Decision date: 22 February 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Blue Property Management UK Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (up to 2018-02-06) | £2,891.05 | £2,891.05 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-2019) | £4,184.26 | £4,184.26 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2019) | £733 | £733 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2021) | £1,255 | £1,255 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Historic service and administration charges up to and including 06 February 2018 of £2,891.05.”
“Service charges between 25 March 2018 and 25 March 2019 of £4,184.26.”
“Administration charges between 11 June 2019 and 20 December 2019 of £733.00.”
“The conclusion we have reached is that there was never a handover fee of £3,950.00, or any other sum. The sum of £512.00 wrongly credited was subsequently reversed.”
“There was no challenge to the cost, which was under £5,000.00 (being most but not all of the expenditure of £5,043.00 for repairs and general maintenance appearing in the income and expenditure account for the year ending 28 September 2019).”
“We will allow the following contractual costs: (1) County Court fee: £455.00. (2) Tribunal fee: £200.00. (3) Mr Phillips' preparation of the bundle and attendance fee: £600.00. This totals £1,255.00.”
“Strictly speaking, interest should be applied to each part of the total debt from the date when that part arose. In other words, each interim service charge should attract interest from the date on which that charge became due. But the landlord has not provided us with a comprehensive schedule to enable us to do that. It is not the tribunal's function to make those time-consuming calculations itself.”
“In the circumstances, we consider that it would be unfair to award the additional sums in these proceedings against the tenant. They will have to be the subject matter of future proceedings if necessary.”
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.