LON/00AG/LSC/2025/0913 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2025/0913, decided 13 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 14, Sutherland House, 2 Greencroft Gardens, London NW6 3LR and reached a mixed result: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 14, Sutherland House, 2 Greencroft Gardens, London NW6 3LR
Decision date: 13 May 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Moreland Estates / Moorland Estate Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023) | £660 | £660 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023) | £3,734.40 | £3,734.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Administration charges | £6,885.17 | £0 | conceded | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the charges in respect of rubbish bin hire are payable and reasonable.”
“The tribunal determines that the charges in respect of cleaning and gardening are payable and reasonable.”
“We accept Mr Frelich's explanation. No evidence has been provided by Ms Farrell to substantiate any challenge to these amounts.”
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of Project Cornwall is £3,734.40.”
“There is no decision for the tribunal to make.”
“The Respondents confirmed that the issues had been resolved and Ms Farrell would not be charged for the items originally being challenged.”
“Despite there essentially having been three case management hearings, and having been advised specifically at the adjourned hearing on 9 March what she would be expected to present, throughout the hearing the Applicant struggle to point to where the figures she was challenging came from or the evidence in the bundle on which she was seeking to rely.”
“Many of the comments raised were questions she wished the managing agent to answer or actions she wished them to take. Many issues the Applicant attempted to raise were ones which were not capable of determination by the tribunal, for example accounting matters relating to the use of the reserve fund (which we noted that Mr Freilich had explained).”
“Despite being reminded of this throughout the hearing, the Applicant was unable to present argument as to why the items within the Scott Schedule were either not payable or not reasonable.”
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.