LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0071 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0071, decided 2 January 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 68 St John's Wood Court, London and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 68 St John's Wood Court, London
Decision date: 2 January 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Faraday Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2022) | £132,873 | £132,873 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022) | £21,995 | £21,995 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £102,111 | £102,111 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | £145,700 | £145,700 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“this does not appear to the Tribunal to be a strikingly high sum for 4 members of full-time staff in London, even if one does have the benefit of free accommodation. The Applicant has not supplied any evidence to suggest that this sum is unreasonable.”
“The cost claimed of £21,995 does not seem strikingly high for a 1- or 2-bedroom flat in this particular block in this part of central London. The Applicant in any event did not supply any evidence of comparable lettings to indicate that it is too high.”
“Given that the block is a very substantial block consisting of 91 flats the sums involved do not appear to be obviously inflated. The Respondent carried out a s.20 consultation in respect of the relevant fire safety costs and chose the contractor who supplied the lowest estimate.”
“in the absence of any counter evidence from the Applicant the Tribunal finds that the costs claimed were reasonable.”
“Unfortunately no effort had been made by the Respondent prior to the hearing to identify the specific invoices which supported the service charges now disputed in the Applicant's Scott schedule.”
“The Tribunal does not understand why no effort appears to have been made subsequently by the Respondent to identify the invoices that were relevant to the Scott Schedule served in May 2023, and to ensure in particular that only those invoices were included in the bundle prepared for this hearing.”
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.