LON/00AD/LSC/2025/0898 — service charge decision
In LON/00AD/LSC/2025/0898, decided 1 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at 134A, West Street, Erith, Kent DA8 1AN and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 134A, West Street, Erith, Kent DA8 1AN
Decision date: 1 May 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2020-2024) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-2024) | — | £20 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020-2024) | — | £5 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £9.95 | £5 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2024) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2020-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020-2024) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-2024) | — | £180.48 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-2024) | £506.40 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2024) | £303.25 | £170.51 | Reduced | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2020-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“It appears that the report inspection is concluded in 30 minutes. It would seem that this charge is tainted by the Estate error and as agreed with Mrs Walker, the sum offered by Mr McLean is accepted by the Applicant.”
“The charge was challenged in any event by Mr McLean who offered £20 which we consider reasonable in all the circumstances”
“Doing the best we can we conclude that a charge of £5 pretty nearly reflect a third charge if one accepts that there are circa 100 units on the total estate and Mr McLeans block would seem to comprise approximately 1/3rd”
“Bulk waste was £9.95 in the year to March 2022. Mr McLean offered £3. It is unclear to us whether these was confined to Mr McLean's Estate or the wider Estate. We consider on this minor point a compromise at £5 is reasonable.”
“Mr McLean was content with a £5 reduction to reflect the Estate issue.”
“The door entry repairs were not disputed at the hearing and nor were the electricity charges.”
“However, that hearing could not take place due to, it would appear, failings on both sides”
“we were shown attendance sheets, which in truth provided little information.”
“This, it appears, was an issue Mr McLean had been attempting to resolve with the Applicant for some considerable time. There was evidence in the bundle before us of attempts to resolve matters with the Applicant, but these had, in the main proved fruitless.”
“Mr McLean has not made any contribution to the service charge account during the period of this dispute, which is a pity as there are items he accepted were due and owing.”
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.