LON/00AF/LSC/2024/0265 — service charge decision
In LON/00AF/LSC/2024/0265, decided 22 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, 19 Elmers End Road, Anerley, SE20 7ST and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, 19 Elmers End Road, Anerley, SE20 7ST
Decision date: 22 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: AM Surveying and Block Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/2023) | £3,000 | £3,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023/2024) | £4,000 | £4,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022/2023) | £120 | £120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023/2024) | £470 | £120 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2022/2023) | £800 | £400 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2023/2024) | £800 | £400 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2022/2023) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2023/2024) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2022/2023) | £2,050 | £2,050 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023/2024) | £3,000 | £3,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/2023) | £350 | £350 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023/2024) | £500 | £500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022/2023) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023/2024) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the budgeted amounts in respect of the general repairs - external in the sum of £3,000 was reasonably budgeted for the year 2022/2023”
“similarly in the sum of £4,000 for the year 2023/2024”
“the budgeted amount of the interim charge for this item for the year 2022/2023 is reasonable in the sum of £120”
“The budgeted amount of the interim charge for the year 2023/2024 is not reasonable and should have been £120, as conceded by the Respondent.”
“it would have been reasonable to budget a figure of £400 per annum, and not £800”
“it would have been reasonable to budget a figure of £400 per annum, and not £800”
“despite the opportunity being given to the Respondent to explain in the Schedule how the budgeted amounts had been arrived at, it failed to do so in relation to all of the items. It was also only at the hearing that certain concessions were made by the Respondent.”
“the Respondent failed to set out how it arrived at the budgeted figure of £800. There was no specification of the works. All that was provided was a log to show that an employee of the Managing Agent had been attending once a month, but it was not clear for what purpose.”
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.