Decision summary

LON/00AE/LSC/2025/0710 — service charge decision

In LON/00AE/LSC/2025/0710, decided 10 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 131B Sandringham Road, Willesden, London NW2 5EJ and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 131B Sandringham Road, Willesden, London NW2 5EJ
Decision date: 10 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Utilities (2023/24)£1,232.82£299.25ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2023/24)£59.06£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Administration charges (2023/24)£193.79£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2025/26)£132£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2025/26)£102£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Utilities (2025/26)£225£330ReducedLandlord could not evidence the cost
Administration charges (2025/26)£68.85£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease

Key passages (verbatim)

“The total sum claimed by the Respondent for this year is £2,465.64. This is entirely based on estimated meter readings... the Tribunal found a sum of £90 per annum for the supply of electricity to be reasonable, resulting in a total cost of £570 per annum... the Applicant's contribution for the year in question to be £299.25, being 50% of this figure.”
On utilities
“save for the electricity cost, the Applicant is not contractually liable to pay the remaining service charges demanded by the Respondent.”
On other charges
“save for the electricity charges, none of the other service charges claimed by the Respondent are contractually payable by the Applicant.”
On administration charges
“save for the electricity charges, none of the other service charges claimed by the Respondent are contractually payable by the Applicant.”
On other charges
“save for the electricity charges, none of the other service charges claimed by the Respondent are contractually payable by the Applicant.”
On other charges
“The estimated amount claimed by the Respondent is £225 per month or £2,700 per annum... Absent this evidence, the Tribunal applied an uplift of approximately 10% to the 2023/24 figure it found to be reasonable, resulting in a figure for the building of £660 per annum. The Tribunal therefore finds the Applicant's estimated contribution for the year in question to be £330, being 50% of this figure.”
On utilities
“It seems that the Respondent failed to respond to his correspondence in any meaningful way.”
Of Notting Hill Genesis (Respondent)

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.