LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0455 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2021/0455, decided 14 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flat 7, 140 Gloucester Terrace, London and reached a mixed result: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 7, 140 Gloucester Terrace, London
Decision date: 14 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-19 to 2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Lifts (2018-19 to 2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Major works (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19 to 2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19 to 2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19 to 2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020-21) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £8,040 | £3,440 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £7,811 | £3,440 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £3,440 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £2,750 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Administration charges (2018-19 to 2020-21) | — | — | conceded | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The correct percentage to be used when calculating the service charge liability for Flat 7 is 3.92%.”
“The costs incurred were reasonable and payable. Full consultation had taken place regarding the lift works. The amount charged to the applicant should be recalculated based on 3.92% rather than the 5.86% charged.”
“The budget costs are reasonable, the apportionment should be based on 3.92%.”
“The lease provides for external parts of the building to be maintained by the lessor. The balcony and porch roof are part of the exterior of the building therefore are part of the Reserved Property and consequently the costs of repairs are service charge expenses.”
“The costs incurred were reasonable and payable.”
“The amount of the sinking fund collected in total for the building was reasonable. The apportionment for Flat 7 is incorrect: it should be recalculated based on 3.92% of the total for the building.”
“It was unreasonable not to provide details of the percentage of service charge account paid in respect of the other flats in the building: the list of original percentages was included in Mrs Massara's lease. She could not ascertain if she was being charged unfairly without this information.”
“The mislabelling of all fees as legal fees goes to the management of the block.”
“there has been a lack of transparency regarding the individual percentages and mislabelling of schedules which resulted in disinformation and a delay in commissioning the work necessary to bring the lift back into service.”
“Nevertheless there has been no cogent reason why the lift should have been out of service for such a long period of time.”
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.