LON/00AB/LSC/2025/0743 — service charge decision
In LON/00AB/LSC/2025/0743, decided 19 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at 47-53 Curzon Crescent, Barking, Essex and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 47-53 Curzon Crescent, Barking, Essex
Decision date: 19 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020-2024) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £1,761.04 | £1,100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £2,464.40 | £1,178 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works | £6,937.97 | £6,937.97 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | £3,034 | £3,034 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | £8,360 | £8,360 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | £3,632.29 | £3,632.29 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | £3,468.04 | £2,924.08 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works | £1,566.13 | £460.69 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Major works | £4,701.56 | £4,701.56 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | £1,060 | £1,060 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | £7,348 | £3,026.66 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges | £2,292 | £1,578.03 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-2024) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal did not consider it reasonable for the Respondent to charge for an additional policing service, beyond that provided to the public in general, without providing any rationale for such service, any contract, any invoice or any statement giving details of the service provided.”
“The tribunal did not consider it reasonable for the Respondent to charge annually for providing and servicing a community TV aerial without preparing a statement explaining its purpose or identifying a contract or invoice in respect of the service allegedly provided.”
“It was agreed between the parties that the charge for Health and Safety Equipment Maintenance for the service charge years 2020-2024 was reasonable and payable.”
“The tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premiums of £1,761.04 in 2023 and £2,464.40 in 2024 were reasonably incurred.”
“the figure obtained by taking the mean of the four insurance quotes provided by the Applicants in 2025 is the closest estimate of a reasonable sum to be charged for insurance for the property based on market evidence for the service charge year 2024.”
“The cost of the scaffold was subject to competitive tendering and was the best value quote. The tribunal found that the cost was reasonable when compared to the Applicants' own quote.”
“The Respondent had disclosed several documents late (including the invoices and the consultation notices) in breach of the directions of Judge Korn dated 27 May 2025.”
“The Bundle (prepared by the Respondent) was in several parts, each part paginated from page 1, making it difficult to find the relevant page reference without having several bundles open at once. This was in breach of the directions of Judge Korn which required one single bundle in PDF format.”
“The tribunal considered it would be unfair for the Respondent to be permitted to rely on further insurance documents provided on the day of the hearing, over two months' late, as the Applicants would not have any opportunity to respond or find alternative quotes based on the new documents.”
“the Respondent only has itself to blame for that, it having failed to provide the relevant insurance documents to enable the Applicants to seek more accurate comparative quotes.”
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.