LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0287 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0287 & others, decided 30 July 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 2 Sussex Place, London W2 2TP and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 2 Sussex Place, London W2 2TP
Decision date: 30 July 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Knight Frank.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £2,567.08 | £2,267.08 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £1,981 | £990.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £2,566.80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), No Section 20 consultation |
| Major works (2019-20) | £20,940 | £1,250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Dispensation refused, Poor standard of work, Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £6,834 | £3,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £450 | £450 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £2,673 | £1,336.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20ZA dispensation: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal estimates that cost at around £300 and, therefore, the relevant costs should be reduced by that amount.”
“the Tribunal agrees with the Applicants that Knight Frank's fees should be cut by 50%.”
“The work done is worse than useless and the cost has not been reasonably incurred. Therefore, the whole of the cost should be disallowed.”
“the Tribunal has decided to refuse dispensation from the consultation requirements because it would not be reasonable to grant it. Therefore, the cost of these works is limited to a total of £1,250.”
“the Tribunal has determined that a reasonable amount for the redecoration works would be no more than £2,500 plus VAT.”
“The charge of £450 was good value for the actual service delivered. Therefore, it is reasonable and payable.”
“The Respondent claims that the works were too urgent to go through the full consultation process but this is not supported by the Fire Risk Assessment or the actual amount of time it took them to get the work done.”
“He stated that he cannot understand how the contractor can have been paid with the door left in this inoperable condition.”
“In this case, the Respondent cut corners and, as is often the case when corners are cut, it was counter-productive. If the full statutory requirements had been followed, it is likely that the works would have been specified properly and supervised.”
“their approach was to cut corners. They tried to rush without achieving any great speed, instead only delivering a lower standard of service than would have been the case if they had just proceeded in a standard manner, complying with all of their legal obligations.”
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.