LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0311 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0311, decided 22 May 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Ground Floor Flat, 4 Warrington Crescent, Maida Vale, London and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ground Floor Flat, 4 Warrington Crescent, Maida Vale, London
Decision date: 22 May 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Parkgate Aspen.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2021-22) | £4,431 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £4,649 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £5,272 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The fees work out at £14.00 per week plus VAT for each flat. The Directors of the freehold company agree the fees.”
“The fees work out at £14.00 per week plus VAT for each flat. The Directors of the freehold company agree the fees.”
“The fees work out at £14.00 per week plus VAT for each flat. The Directors of the freehold company agree the fees.”
“The tribunal had some concerns about the levels of insurance, managing fees and the accountancy charges but it noted the Respondent failed to provide any comparative evidence.”
“she claimed the cleaning was of poor quality but had no evidence to support this assertion.”
“It accepts the Applicant's assurances that there were beyond its control and that they are looking for refunds of these from their brokers so that the leaseholders will be credited for all of those payments.”
“The tribunal also had concerns about the late charges for electricity. It accepts the Applicant's assurances that there were beyond its control and that they are looking for refunds of these from their brokers so that the leaseholders will be credited for all of those payments. As the current year is only estimated service charges the tribunal expects that the finalised accounts will reflect those credits.”
“The tribunal had some concerns about the levels of insurance, managing fees and the accountancy charges but it noted (i) The Respondent failed to provide any comparative evidence. (ii) The amounts demanded have been agreed by the freeholder company which comprises leaseholders who are liable for the charges alongside the Respondent.”
“the tribunal also had concerns about what appeared to be high charges for routine checks for health and safety and for asbestos.”
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.