LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0053 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0053, decided 9 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at 500 Clive Court, Maida Vale, London and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 500 Clive Court, Maida Vale, London
Decision date: 9 May 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2021) | £66,829 | £66,829 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2021) | £2,053 | £2,053 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2021) | £6,188 | £6,188 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | £41,485 | £41,485 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £50,752 | £50,752 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £79,955 | £79,955 | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £13,725 | £13,725 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2021) | £14,532 | £14,532 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2021) | £30,000 | £30,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £8,380 | £8,380 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £6,585 | £6,585 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £272,413 | £272,413 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £9,700 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Staffing & concierge (2021) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021) | £12,420 | £12,420 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021) | £45,421 | £45,421 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Employment contracts for porters and their services were included in the bundle and were considered by the tribunal who are satisfied that there was a clear job description available thereby, and that there was no merit to the applicant's case with regard to Porterage charges.”
“The tribunal found this objection to be vague and somewhat unparticularised and in the circumstances found the charge for porter administration to be reasonable and payable by the applicant to the respondent.”
“the tribunal finds this charge to be reasonable and payable by the applicant to the respondent”
“The tribunal could find no merit in the applicant's objection and found it to be vague and unsubstantiated.”
“The applicant failed to provide any evidence by way of an alternative quotation for these services and in the circumstances the tribunal finds that these service charges are reasonable and payable by the applicant to the respondent.”
“It seemed to the tribunal that given a prolonged acquiescence and unfairness involved in permitting the applicant to now resile from it, that the tribunal should hold that what has taken place over many years should be allowed.”
“The refusal and failure to pay a court fee and to comply with a clear Direction amounted in our view to an abuse of the process. Actions, or indeed in this case, a lack of action, have consequences.”
“The applicant appears to have disputed all work carried out which the respondent believes to be unreasonable. The respondent's position is that the applicant has failed to put forward any evidence or reasoning as to why she believes the charges in question to be unreasonable. Her approach does have the appearance of a de facto audit of the landlord, The applicant made a wide ranging challenge to the accounts by challenging each accounting heading, in many instances without any evidence to support the challenge. Her claims have in almost all cases been completely without merit. Indeed, she has been successful in just one comparatively small item.”
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.