LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0087 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0087 & others, decided 22 November 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 15A and 15B Clifton Villas, London and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15A and 15B Clifton Villas, London
Decision date: 22 November 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Susan Wolff (Director).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | £2,910.85 | £250 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges | £2,566.81 | £250 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation |
| Major works | — | £250 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2016) | £5,000 | £5,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | £2,407.55 | £1,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance | £4,029 | £2,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“As there was no consultation and no application for dispensation by the landlord the Tribunal disallows both amounts and limits the liability of the tenants to the statutory limit of £250 each tenant.”
“As there was no consultation and no application for dispensation by the landlord the Tribunal disallows both amounts and limits the liability of the tenants to the statutory limit of £250 each tenant.”
“As there was no consultation and no application for dispensation by the landlord the Tribunal disallows the amounts for fire safety works and limits the liability of the tenants to the statutory limit of £250 each.”
“the sum of £5000 is properly payable by the respondent pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement made between the parties and dated 25 July 2016.”
“Even at this final amount the Tribunal considered the amount to be unreasonable for the work effected to complete this installation. In the circumstances the Tribunal considers a reasonable charge to amount to £1500 in total.”
“the Tribunal was firmly of the view that the main thrust of the work was not to repair a flat roof but rather to establish a useable balcony for flat D … the appropriate sum in this regard would be limited to 50% of the amount charged say in the sum of £2000.”
“Regrettably the digital bundles were not as the Tribunal would have preferred. The Tribunal was very disappointed by the nature of the several trial bundles that were supplied to it for the hearing. They were not really submitted in accordance with previous Directions and were poorly organised in a way that the Tribunal found unhelpful and overly time consuming to refer to.”
“There was no proper or completed Scott Schedule as required by directions and the invoices and receipts were presented in an unclear and confusing manner. Indeed, the Tribunal was regularly referred to a copy "cash book" in which to try to garner just was amounts were expended or claimed. Frankly this was very unsatisfactory and the Tribunal would ask the respondent to improve its record keeping and documentation when dealing with the service charge records and accounts as this would benefit the landlord and the tenant in their future dealings.”
“Judge Carr wrote that the respondent's compliance with Directions given by the Tribunal in LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0087 had been woeful.”
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.