LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0060 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0060, decided 20 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 3 Hatherley Court, Hatherley Grove, London, W2 5RD and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 Hatherley Court, Hatherley Grove, London, W2 5RD
Decision date: 20 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group Limited (RGM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2018-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | £636 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £5,411 | £5,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“On the basis of the limited basis before us, the Tribunal is satisfied that the sums charged for insurance are reasonable. This is an expert tribunal. The premium of £307 per flat is well within the range of those payable of flats of this nature.”
“In the experience of this Tribunal, this is at the lower end of the scale. The Tribunal is satisfied that the sums demanded have been reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the reserve fund contributions which have been demanded have been reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the service charges demanded are reasonable given the service that is provided. There has been no criticism of the quality of the service.”
“No such documents have been provided for the demands for administration charges. The Tribunal has merely been provided with the invoices. The Tribunal is not satisfied that these sums are payable.”
“The Tribunal considers that the hourly rates claim by the solicitor and counsel are somewhat high. However, the Court has regard to the overall size of the costs claimed. In the circumstances, DJ Latham assesses costs in the sum of £5,000 (including VAT).”
“The Applicant has not provided the Tribunal with a copy of the relevant management agreements. Mr Jussab stated that they are commercially sensitive. The Tribunal disagrees. They could, and should, have been produced.”
“the landlord has not provided (i) the certificates of insurance for the years in dispute; (ii) a summary of policy terms and conditions; (iii) any claims history taken into account by brokers and/or insurers when the policies were written; and/or (iv) any other 'additional risks' covered.”
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.