LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0454 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0454, decided 26 September 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flats C and D, 220 Gloucester Terrace, London W2 6HU and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats C and D, 220 Gloucester Terrace, London W2 6HU
Decision date: 26 September 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £276.01 | £276.01 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £103 | £15.66 | Reduced | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £167.76 | £133.56 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £25.78 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £93.21 | £93.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020-21) | £1,682.21 | £1,682.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020-21) | £12,206.52 | £12,206.52 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Apart from general criticism of Respondent's behaviour there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that this figure was excessive.”
“The Respondent has made an allowance bring that figure down to £15.66. The Applicants are still not happy about that but accept that it is a very small figure. No evidence was produced to suggest unreasonableness.”
“This was reduced to £133.56 per Applicant which the Tribunal finds is reasonable.”
“This claim has now been withdrawn by the Respondent.”
“Only 2 visits have been charged and the Tribunal finds that this is a reasonable service charge for the building.”
“2021 major works charges – Scheme PR187 - £1,682.21 per Applicant – reasonable and payable.”
“the hours of time which had to spent in considering many pages of duplicated documents just in case they included some new information was not appreciated. It showed that the Respondent, which prepared the bundle, was on the verge of breaching the need to help and co-operate with the Tribunal in the overriding objective contained within the procedural rules.”
“The management skills of the Respondent do leave a lot to be desired but their general management fees are less that a long leaseholder would expect to pay with a commercial private landlord.”
“It is simply wrong for the sub-contractor's work to be supervised by the main contractor and for the Respondent to then charge another fee for supervision.”
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.