LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0245 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0245, decided 7 December 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 56 St George's Drive, London and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, 56 St George's Drive, London
Decision date: 7 December 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2023-24) | £169.48 | £152.53 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £283.40 | £262.60 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Lifts (2023-24) | £326.56 | £326.56 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant has provided some evidence to indicate that lighting is left on all day and all night and that she receives no benefit from certain lighting due to problems with access. On this basis we consider that it is appropriate to reduce the charges by 10%.”
“the Respondent has provided no information or evidence justifying the increase from the previous year. The Respondent should not be able to benefit from its own default and it has been given ample opportunity to justify its charges”
“the cost to her has only increased from £312.52 to £326.56. In the absence of any evidence as to what would be reasonable, we are not in a position to say that this modest increase is unreasonable.”
“whilst a reasonable management fee would be recoverable if the Tenancy Agreement provided for it, there is no mention in the Tenancy Agreement of the Respondent being entitled to charge a management fee. This charge is therefore disallowed.”
“There is no justification for charging a separate amount simply for the use of these items in the absence of clear wording in the Tenancy Agreement permitting the Respondent to levy such a charge on top of any of the more usual charges, and there is no such wording in the Tenancy Agreement.”
“the tribunal's directions were extremely clear in this regard and do not appear to have confused the Applicant”
“It chooses not to adjust the charge to reflect the actual cost, but that is just bad practice; this does not turn the charge into a fixed one.”
“the Respondent has not engaged properly with the application; it has been very reticent in providing information, it has not offered a proper statement of case and it did not attend the 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.