LON/00AB/LSC/2024/0761 — service charge decision
In LON/00AB/LSC/2024/0761, decided 11 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Flat 603 Beckett Court, 13 Mast Street, Barking, Essex and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 603 Beckett Court, 13 Mast Street, Barking, Essex
Decision date: 11 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Reside Regeneration LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £509.81 | £407.85 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | £175.92 | £140.74 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £462.25 | £462.25 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £706.41 | £706.41 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £11.73 | £11.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £2.46 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £4 | £4 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £383.26 | £275 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal concluded based upon their experience and knowledge a 20% reduction in charges is appropriate given the quality of the service delivery.”
“The parties agreed at the hearing that disputed fees and charges determined by the Tribunal in respect of the 2023/24 service charge year should be adopted as a basis for the 2024/25 budgeted costs... subject to a 4.2% uplift.”
“The Tribunal based upon their experience and knowledge has determined a reduction of 20% in the service charge for grounds' maintenance payable by the Applicant.”
“The parties agreed at the hearing that disputed fees and charges determined by the Tribunal in respect of the 2023/24 service charge year should be adopted as a basis for the 2024/25 budgeted costs.”
“In the absence of any alternative evidence, the Tribunal relies upon the advice given to the Second Respondent by their insurance broker, Gallagher's... Tribunal determine the pro rata sum of £462.25 is both reasonable and payable.”
“Tribunal determines a sum of £706.41 in respect of buildings' insurance is both reasonable and payable for the 2024/25 service charge year.”
“The Second Respondent was aware of the issues in dispute when the bundle was collated. The service logs were available at that time, but they failed to include them in the bundle. This was an error by the Second Respondents', and it would now be unfair to the applicant to allow material to be adduced without sufficient time for their review.”
“Whilst this offered some evidence of visits to monitor caretaking performance throughout the year in dispute, it failed to provide clarity when the Tribunal queried some of the entries.”
“The Tribunal enquiries revealed that no description of the management services provided to the leaseholders was offered by either Respondent.”
“They also noted a lack of transparency between the First and Second Respondents in the transfer of information about charges.”
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.