LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0086 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0086, decided 8 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Ground Floor Flat, 108 St George's Square, London SW1V 3QY and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ground Floor Flat, 108 St George's Square, London SW1V 3QY
Decision date: 8 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mrs Hambro.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020-21) | £682.63 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £8,822.95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2021-22) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2021-22) | £7,848 | £5,886 | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Major works (2021-22) | £77,790 | £77,790 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £994 | £994 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal finds Mrs Hambro is both unqualified and unsuitable to act as a manager for the subject building… the tribunal finds no justification for a management fee of 10% of the annual expenditure for the limited roles carried out by Mrs Hambro”
“the tribunal finds no justification for a charge of £8,822.92 for the service charge year ending 25/3/2022 as Mrs Hambro was neither qualified to, nor carried out the work of a project manager on the major works”
“the tribunal considers the respondent's 16.96% share of the unrecovered sum of £10,768 amounting to £1,826.25 is not payable by the respondent”
“the tribunal finds the work/report of Empace was duplicated to some extent… the sum paid to Empace in the sum of £7848.00… should be reduced by 50% to reflect this duplication, thereby amounting to a reduction of £665.51”
“The tribunal accepts the works were completed by Home Construction & Maintenance in the sum of £77,790.00… The tribunal finds the works were necessary and carried out to a reasonable standard and cost and are payable by the respondent”
“the legal costs of £994 claimed by the applicant fall within this clause and are reasonable in amount and are payable by the respondent”
“the tribunal finds Mrs Hambro is both unqualified and unsuitable to act as a manager for the subject building as the tribunal finds she carries out her role as 'manager' with a degree of self-interest with receipts going into the reserve fund and being withdrawn whenever needed.”
“the applicant has made no attempt to recover any balance from BSL through litigation but has chosen instead, to purse the respondent in respect of his contribution to these costs without providing a comprehensive explanation as to why more of the deposit sum for the abortive works has not been recovered.”
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.