LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0325 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2022/0325, decided 19 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 30 Upper Berkeley Street, London W1H 5QE and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, 30 Upper Berkeley Street, London W1H 5QE
Decision date: 19 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Square Estate Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2015/16–2021/22) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), No Section 20 consultation |
| Cleaning (2015/16–2021/22) | — | £100 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Management fees (2015/16–2021/22) | — | £100 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Major works (2015/16–2021/22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2015/16–2021/22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2015/16–2021/22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2015/16–2021/22) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the porterage charge is disallowed in its entirety … by virtue of paragraph 4(1) of the 2003 Regulations … they are limited to £100 per year per service … This limitation is in addition to any other limitations set out within this determination.”
“they are limited to £100 per year per service (i.e. £100 for managing agents' fees, £100 for porterage charges and £100 for cleaning charges) by reason of the failure to consult.”
“the annual fees are £3,000 for the building for each year of dispute … we consider that a reasonable fee would be £300 per flat … limited to £100 per year per service … by reason of the failure to consult.”
“The challenge to the cost of the roof replacement therefore fails.”
“on the basis of the information before us there is no proper basis for declaring the amount to be unreasonable … the building insurance contracts were not QLTAs and there was no statutory requirement to consult leaseholders.”
“there is no proper basis on the evidence before us for concluding that any of these items is not payable.”
“a significant number of the Applicant's challenges have been quite weak, and it seems to us that if the Applicant had just focused on his strong points the whole process could have been quicker and cheaper in terms of legal costs.”
“unsubstantiated claims of fraud were made against the Respondents, and these did not do credit to the Applicant.”
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.