LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0313 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0313, decided 31 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 58 Maitland Court, Lancaster Terrace, London W2 3PE and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 58 Maitland Court, Lancaster Terrace, London W2 3PE
Decision date: 31 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Fortune Block Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-2022) | — | £259.74 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2018) | £474.17 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2019) | £315.59 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2020) | £804.23 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the consequence of these findings is that only demands made in the 18 months prior to receipt of the documents by Mr Rana are payable… This relates to 6 shortfall amounts, each of £43.29 totalling £259.74. The Tribunal finds these payable.”
“the relevant period commenced on 21 May 2021”
“the relevant period commenced on 21 May 2021”
“The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence as to the time period within which the costs giving rise to the Further Interim Charge for 2020 were incurred. Accordingly, the applicants have not proved that this expenditure was incurred within 18 months of the demand.”
“However, whilst it accepts his evidence that different procedures are in place for dealing with Maitland Court as compared with other managements, he did at one point say that invoices would have been emailed and then stated that someone in the office would have posted the invoices to respondent.”
“The Tribunal finds Mr Tambaros did not have personal knowledge of the posting of individual demands. Further there were no covering letters or any other documentary evidence to support the applicant's case.”
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.