LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0141 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0141, decided 22 June 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 229 Sussex Gardens, London, W2 2RL and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, 229 Sussex Gardens, London, W2 2RL
Decision date: 22 June 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: G & H Z Limited trading as Sloan Block Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017/18) | £197 | £197 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/19) | £224 | £224 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £86 | £86 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £306 | £110 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2017/18) | £273.70 | £273.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018/19) | £2,308 | £2,308 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019/20) | £753 | £753 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020/21) | £-869 | £-869 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021/22) | £787.06 | £787.06 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017/18) | £1,435 | £245.07 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2018/19) | £231.68 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019/20) | £199.65 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £234 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017/18) | £1,755 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018/19) | £1,755 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019/20) | £1,755 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020/21) | £1,755 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021/22) | £1,755.20 | £1,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“2017/18 £1,800 £197 £197”
“2018/19 £2,040 £224 £224”
“2019/20 £1,680 £0 £0”
“2020/21 £788 £86 £86”
“Yet the estimated sum for 2021/22 does seems excessive in relation to the revised fee for the year before. In that context we consider that an estimated charge for accountancy for 2021/22 should be £1,000 and as such Ms Sinclair's contribution should be reduced to £110.”
“£2,620 for 2017/8 with legal invoices from JB Leitch of £2,495 plus a surveyor's fee of £125 and the relevant ledger report is at [357]. (10.97% of the legal fees being £273.70)”
“the Tribunal cannot see a clear audit trail between what is being sought from Ms Sinclair and the reconciliation provided.”
“we have found that the information provided by the Applicant has been opaque and we can understand Ms Sinclair's frustrations.”
“that has been one of the challenging parts of this case is that there is a lack of transparency by the Applicant and therefore no clear audit trail to see what items of expenditure come under each heading.”
“over the years there has been a significant amount of money expended on legal fees to resolve these ongoing issues between the parties. There still remains some areas of dispute and the issue of transparency in respect of the accounts, reconciliation and the reserve funds has resulted in a lack of trust.”
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.