LON/00AG/LSC/2025/0683 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2025/0683, decided 18 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, First/Middle Floor, 16 Priory Terrace, West Hampstead, NW6 4DH and found largely for the leaseholder: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, First/Middle Floor, 16 Priory Terrace, West Hampstead, NW6 4DH
Decision date: 18 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2023-2024) | £3,968.72 | £2,098 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £3,042 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £744 | — | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £585.60 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £360 | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £465.60 | — | conceded | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £205 | £0 | conceded | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the premium of £3,968.72 (including VAT) was reasonably incurred... the Respondent failed to show what steps, if any, they took to secure the lowest reasonable figure and failed to provide any evidence as to how the Gallagher invoice (and re-instatement figure) was obtained.”
“the Respondent admitted that items 2) General Repairs (Cascatia Water) in the sum of £3,042.00 ... were not payable by the Applicant.”
“Following settlement negotiations at the start of the hearing the parties agreed reduced service charge sums in respect of items 3) General Repairs (Pyramid Solutions Ltd).”
“the Respondent further admitted that item 4) General Repairs (DB Electrical (London) Ltd) in the sum of £585.60 was not payable by the Applicant under the terms of the lease because the lighting concerned was not in the communal parts.”
“the parties agreed reduced service charge sums in respect of items 3) General Repairs (Pyramid Solutions Ltd), 5) Fire Doors Inspection and 6) Health and Safety Units.”
“the parties agreed reduced service charge sums in respect of items 3) General Repairs (Pyramid Solutions Ltd), 5) Fire Doors Inspection and 6) Health and Safety Units.”
“The Respondent nevertheless chose not to obtain a reinstatement valuation for the relevant period (2023-2024) and did not provide any evidence from the Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Broker Ltd as to how the figure of £2,586,494 was calculated. The Respondent failed to provide evidence to show what steps the landlord took to obtain that re-instatement value. It remains a mystery how the figure of £2,586,494 came into being.”
“Further, the Respondent did not provide any policy, schedule or other documentation in support of the 2023-2024 building insurance premium and was unable to demonstrate whether the landlord had tested the market at all.”
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.