LON/00AG/LSC/2024/0629 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2024/0629, decided 22 April 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flats 20, 10 and 16 Pioneer House, 46 Britannia Street, London WC1X 9HJ and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 20, 10 and 16 Pioneer House, 46 Britannia Street, London WC1X 9HJ
Decision date: 22 April 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017/2018) | £78.64 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023/2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024/2025) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2023/2024) | £300 | £250 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Management fees (2024/2025) | £300 | £250 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We agree that we have no jurisdiction in respect of this challenge.”
“the sums demanded in respect of the reserve fund in 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 were not payable under the terms of the lease because they were used, and were intended by the Respondent to be used, to cover the cost of past works and not potential future costs.”
“the sums demanded in respect of the reserve fund in 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 were not payable under the terms of the lease because they were used, and were intended by the Respondent to be used, to cover the cost of past works and not potential future costs.”
“we reduce the amount payable in respect of each flat to £250 for each of two years in dispute.”
“we reduce the amount payable in respect of each flat to £250 for each of two years in dispute.”
“the Respondent has not acted reasonably as regards the reserve fund and has not dealt with the many queries raised by the leaseholders regarding the debits to the reserve fund in a clear and transparent way.”
“We were not told why the Respondent decided to recoup the costs in this way rather than recovering the cost directly as a service charge.”
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.