Decision summary

LON/00BK/LSC/2024/0211 — service charge decision

In LON/00BK/LSC/2024/0211, decided 5 November 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Ground, lower ground and basement floors, 49 Eaton Place, London SW1X 8DE and reached a mixed result: 11 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Ground, lower ground and basement floors, 49 Eaton Place, London SW1X 8DE
Decision date: 5 November 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Principia Estate & Asset Management Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Buildings insurance (2022-23)£18,631£10,000ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Buildings insurance (2022-23)£5,601£3,000ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Utilities (2022-23)£8,000£5,000ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Cleaning (2022-23)£3,300£2,600ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Management fees (2022-23)£4,320£2,500ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Other charges (2022-23)£450£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2022-23)£9,372£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Gardening & grounds (2022-23)£450£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2022-23)£267£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2022-23)£420£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2022-23)£234£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Repairs & maintenance (2022-23)£1,500£1,500conceded
Other charges (2022-23)£12£12conceded
Other charges (2022-23)£480£480conceded
Administration charges (2022-23)£144£0Withdrawn

Key passages (verbatim)

“Reference was made at the hearing to the buildings insurance sum including an accrual in the region of £8,000... the Tribunal finds it reasonable that the sums demanded on account of buildings and terrorism insurance should be in the region of the sums mentioned in that policy.”
On buildings insurance
“The Grosvenor Flats Block Policy for the year 25 December 2021 to 24 December 2022, which quotes an annual policy premium of £10,059 and a terrorism premium of £2,842.”
On buildings insurance
“It is not clear from the evidence before the Tribunal as to why the Applicant estimated communal electricity charges of £8,000... In the absence of better clarity from the Applicants the Tribunal is prepared to accept the Respondent's proposal of £5,000 as being a reasonable contribution.”
On utilities
“The Tribunal is an expert Tribunal and from its own knowledge and experience it would consider a budgeted charge of £50 per week for cleaning limited communal areas to be reasonable.”
On cleaning
“From its knowledge and experience the Tribunal finds this to be such a high fee per flat as to be unreasonable... It would expect a fee per flat, even in the area in which 49 Eaton Place is located to be in the region of £650 plus VAT per flat.”
On management fees
“Schedule 4 does not provide for the recovery by the landlord of costs incurred by it in connection with health and safety”
On other charges
“Neither party has pointed the Tribunal to satisfactory evidence as to what might have been considered a reasonable sum to be included. The Applicant has referred the Tribunal to authorities that confirm that the landlord does not have to use the cheapest cost available, but these do not of themselves establish a prima facie case that the sums sought by the Applicant are reasonable. The Respondent has provided alternative costs but without evidence to substantiate how these have been arrived at.”
Of Both parties
“It is not clear from the evidence before the Tribunal as to why the Applicant estimated communal electricity charges of £8,000, nor to what extent this includes sums due from previous years. There are invoices in the bundle but all of them relate to periods after the estimated expenditure was produced on 4 July 2022.”
Of Applicant (RTM Company / Principia)

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.