LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0295 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0295, decided 18 February 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Princes Court, 88 Brompton Road, London SW3 1ES and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Princes Court, 88 Brompton Road, London SW3 1ES
Decision date: 18 February 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Sandrove Brahams & Associates Ltd (trading as SBA Property Management).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2016) | £8,066 | £8,066 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2017) | £8,244 | £8,244 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | £9,340 | £9,340 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £9,240 | £9,240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £6,800 | £6,800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £9,000 | £9,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £72,783 | £72,783 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £75,792 | £75,792 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The fees reflect the hours a reputable and experienced accountant said he spent on the accounts and there is no reason to doubt this.”
“The fees reflect the hours a reputable and experienced accountant said he spent on the accounts and there is no reason to doubt this.”
“The fees reflect the hours a reputable and experienced accountant said he spent on the accounts and there is no reason to doubt this.”
“The fees reflect the hours a reputable and experienced accountant said he spent on the accounts and there is no reason to doubt this.”
“The fees reflect the hours a reputable and experienced accountant said he spent on the accounts and there is no reason to doubt this.”
“The amount budgeted for 2021 was £9,000.”
“Mr Merali's quote is virtually useless. He gives no detail of his qualifications or his or his firm's services and gives the impression that he neither knows nor cares about the circumstances of this particular building and any particular requirements or issues in relation to preparing the service charge accounts. It is clear to the Tribunal that the subject property is a complex building liable to give rise to accountancy work over and above what would be expected just working from the total service charge expenditure. The Tribunal has no choice but to disregard it as any sort of genuinely comparative quote.”
“Quite apart from the fact that the standard of the accountants' work had not been pleaded as a ground of challenge to this expenditure, her logic is faulty. She has no idea whether or not the accountants queried it or, if they did, what answer they got at the time.”
“it was way out of the time allowed in the Tribunal's directions and so close to the hearing that the Respondent had insufficient time to address it. There was no reason that the statement could not have been compiled in good time.”
“It is notable that the previous Tribunal commented on how surprising they found the Applicants' lack of witness or other evidence which the current Tribunal can only echo.”
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.