LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0375 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2020/0375 & others, decided 18 January 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at Flat 25 Dudley Court, Upper Berkeley Street, London W1H 5QA and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 25 Dudley Court, Upper Berkeley Street, London W1H 5QA
Decision date: 18 January 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs | £40,738.40 | £30,553.80 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges | £416.98 | £400 | Reduced | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Taking these matters into account we consider that it is reasonable to reduce the overall fee claim by 25%. This reduces the total sum claimed from £40,738.40 to £30,553.80”
“We consider an appropriate sum would be £400, to reflect the interest to date of our judgment in July 2021, with no further accrual.”
“the costs in relation to the claim for costs seems unreasonably high. It is nearly 40% of the costs of running the whole case. Again, the attendance on the client seems excessive, over 9 hours and two members of staff at the hearing which lasted only some 2 hours is also excessive. Counsel's fee for the costs hearing is £500 more than the brief fee for the full hearing. The fee for calculating the interest seems high as it looks as though this was dealt with by way of computer programme.”
“No attendance by solicitors at the CMC would be required with Counsel present and three hours, including two hours of Ms Bright's time to brief counsel for a CMC, when much of the paperwork was still to be produced is excessive. It is usual for costs of attendance on the Court or tribunal to be absorbed in the hourly rate.”
“the involvement of Ms Bright was perhaps unnecessary given the competence of Mrs Rao.”
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.