LON/00AF/LSC/2024/0160 — service charge decision
In LON/00AF/LSC/2024/0160, decided 30 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 23 disputed service charge items at 192 and 192A High Street, Penge, London SE20 7QB and reached a mixed result: 21 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 192 and 192A High Street, Penge, London SE20 7QB
Decision date: 30 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023/24) | £420.60 | £200 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023/24) | £3,600 | £1,800 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2023/24) | £481.48 | £471.48 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023/24) | £432 | £144 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2023/24) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2023/24) | £420 | £420 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023/24) | £1,200 | £850 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2023/24) | £1,526.40 | £1,179.83 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023/24) | £300 | £78 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (prior to 2023/24) | £2,009.48 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (prior to 2023/24) | £2,007.01 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (prior to 2023/24) | £554.29 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2024/25) | £700 | £350 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024/25) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2024/25) | £1,602.72 | £1,224.49 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2024/25) | £450 | £225 | Reduced | Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2024/25) | — | £425 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Apportionment error, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We agree that the common parts of the Property appear to be very small and that £420.60 would appear to be a high charge for the work done (if indeed it was done). In the absence of any alternative figure and on the additional basis that £200.00 seems a reasonable amount in the circumstances we determine that only £200.00 is payable.”
“we note the alternative quotation for £1,500 + VAT which has not been challenged by the Respondent, and in the absence of any better evidence we determine that the aggregate of these charges should be reduced to £1,500 + VAT (i.e. £1,800.00).”
“In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent as to why the £10.00 penalty charge should be passed on to leaseholders we agree with the Applicants that it should not be, and accordingly the charge is reduced from £481.48 to £471.48.”
“In relation to the charge of £288.00, the Applicants state that the service was not provided and the Respondent has not countered this, and therefore on the evidence before us we consider that the charge is not payable. Therefore, the aggregate charge is reduced from £432.00 to £144.00.”
“The Applicants have referred the tribunal to correspondence in the hearing bundle in which the Respondent stated that leaseholders would not be charged for the key cutting in question. There is also no evidence before us to indicate that the circumstances were such that the Applicants should have been charged for the key cutting. Accordingly, this sum is not payable at all.”
“Therefore, in the absence of any other basis for the challenge, this charge is payable in full.”
“the Respondent had simply not attended the mediation”
“the Respondent's only engagement with these proceedings (except in relation to an early procedural point) has been to send a barrister to the hearing but without giving him any instructions”
“he had no instructions on any of the issues in dispute and was unable to enlighten the tribunal as to why the Respondent had not made any written submissions”
“Nobody from Assethold Limited or from its managing agents Eagerstates Limited attended the hearing.”
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.