LON/00AA/LSC/2023/0378 — service charge decision
In LON/00AA/LSC/2023/0378, decided 3 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, Amen Lodge, Warwick Lane, London EC4M 7BY and reached a mixed result: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, Amen Lodge, Warwick Lane, London EC4M 7BY
Decision date: 3 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Citybrim Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2023) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Staffing & concierge (2020) | — | £166.21 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Staffing & concierge (2021) | — | £167.90 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Staffing & concierge (2022) | — | £198.07 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Staffing & concierge (2023) | — | £190.32 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2023) | — | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2016-2019) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the lease is quite clear that the percentage allocated to Mr Lorenzo is 5.41%… our finding in this case is that the percentage set out in the lease is the correct one”
“the lease is the lease, and it states that the percentage payable by the Applicant is 5.41%”
“the lease is the lease, and it states that the percentage payable by the Applicant is 5.41%”
“the lease is the lease, and it states that the percentage payable by the Applicant is 5.41%”
“We have taken the porterage costs for each year … multiplied that by a 60% figure and applied Mr Lorenzo's leasehold liability of 5.41%… a figure of 50% of the sums we find would be payable is appropriate.”
“a figure of 50% of the sums we find would be payable is appropriate and is reflected on the schedule.”
“Our finding on this point is that the history relating to the service charges is not wholly clear and it is difficult to follow the logic that is put forward by Mr Williams that in somehow omitting the service charge for the porter from the calculation and grossing up the percentages, this is the correct way of dealing with the matter. We do not agree.”
“We consider that Mr Lorenzo has not helped himself by the verbose statements that he has produced containing a large amount of comment which is not relevant to the simple issues for us to determine in this case.”
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.