LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0220 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0220, decided 4 December 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 20 disputed service charge items at 14 Thanet House, 29 Westbourne Terrace, London, W2 3UN and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 14 Thanet House, 29 Westbourne Terrace, London, W2 3UN
Decision date: 4 December 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £11,770 | £11,770 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £22,341 | £22,341 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £36,556 | £36,556 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £734 | £734 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021) | £1,176 | £1,176 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £23,280 | £22,246 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021) | £1,068 | £1,068 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £681.68 | £681.68 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £15,917 | £15,557 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | £24.60 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022) | £6,244 | £6,244 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | £32,087 | £32,087 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | £11,374 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | £32,159 | £32,159 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £941.32 | £941.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £27,350 | £27,350 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £12,661.60 | £12,661.60 | conceded | — |
| Administration charges (2023) | £108 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The individual items of expenditure are shown in the witness statement of Mr Conway. The bulk of the expenditure was incurred at a time where the Applicant was a director of the Respondent and must have been aware of what was budgeted for.”
“The tribunal considers that the respondent is correct in this instance and that the Applicant authorised or otherwise knew about the expenditure and approved it. The tribunal considers the expenditure has been reasonably incurred and is payable.”
“These items are discussed at paragraphs 23 to 28 above and the sums are carried forward into the following year's accounts. There is nothing further to be refunded.”
“For the reasons set out in those paragraphs the tribunal prefers the view of the Respondent as to the accounting processes to be followed... the tribunal therefore finds that this amount is payable.”
“The Tribunal holds that this expenditure is recoverable. This issue is discussed in paragraphs 29 to 39 above and for the reasons given in those paragraphs this amount is recoverable within the service charge.”
“The tribunal finds that the electricity charges are payable. The Applicant admits the amount subject to an adjustment for use by flat 18. The tribunal finds that this is not proved and the amount is payable in full.”
“At the start of the hearing the tribunal pointed out there had been significant non-compliance with directions in that bundles had been submitted late and were incomplete when submitted. There appear to have been a failure to disclose all relevant invoices and the 2020 accounts were not in the tribunal papers even though these ran to over 1400 pages.”
“The directions required the Applicant to identify for each service charge year the item and amount in dispute and why the amount was disputed and what amount if any the Applicant would pay for that item. The schedule submitted for the hearing simply required the Respondent to prove every item of expenditure. The tribunal stated it would not be going line by line through each years service charge accounts as this would not be an efficient use of the tribunal's time.”
“It would be better practice to show this explicitly to avoid future disputes.”
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.