LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0198 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0198, decided 16 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 69, 70 and 78 Raynham, Norfolk Crescent, W2 2PQ and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 69, 70 and 78 Raynham, Norfolk Crescent, W2 2PQ
Decision date: 16 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Parkgate Aspen.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | £29,199 | £29,199 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Staffing & concierge | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Major works | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Save in respect of the concession in respect of the telephone charges, all relevant costs for service charge purposes were reasonably incurred.”
“Save in respect of the concession in respect of the telephone charges, all relevant costs for service charge purposes were reasonably incurred.”
“Mr Peachey conceded a charge of £69 for telephone charges, for all three flats.”
“the Respondents' submission was not backed up by any alternative quotations, or any evidence of what would have been an appropriate level of expenditure, or even any analysis of what had in fact been done.”
“in the light of Mr Unsdorfer's evidence, to which no effective challenge was made, the challenge is unsupportable.”
“There is, in substance, no challenge, except as to the provision of information, and it appears that that has been satisfied in any event. There is no possible basis for a finding of unreasonableness.”
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.