LON/00AG/LSC/2025/0996 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2025/0996, decided 23 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 6A Frognal Mansions, 97 Frognal, London NW3 6XT and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6A Frognal Mansions, 97 Frognal, London NW3 6XT
Decision date: 23 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: ERA Property.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £2,874 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2024) | £2,954 | £2,954 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £3,719 | £3,719 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024) | £465 | £465 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £1,975 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2024) | £124 | £13 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2024) | £1,619 | £1,619 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £7,320 | £7,320 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024) | £5,636 | £5,636 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“There was no evidence either in the bundle or any late submission of an invoice to support Ms Greenaway's recent recollection”
“The applicant's assertion that the bill should be reduced by 50% was based on a misunderstanding of the extent of the contract.”
“The sum is not unreasonable for the work carried out. The tribunal noted that this sum is a little over half of that spent in the previous year.”
“We are satisfied that Ms Heraty's evidence explains how the costs have been incurred. In the tribunal's general knowledge of gardening costs £465 does not appear excessive.”
“The costs relating to the eviction of the tenant was the responsibility of the leaseholder of that flat and should not have been included within the service charge account. Fees relating solely to the alleged breach of covenant should be billed to the leaseholder.”
“It is unreasonable to effectively increase the management charge without agreement by charging separately for a service which had been an intrinsic part of the management of the block.”
“Ms Greenaway had signed off the accounts in which it was stated the amount was part of the insurance claim relating to a leak from the flat above 6A. There was no evidence either in the bundle or any late submission of an invoice to support Ms Greenaway's recent recollection”
“at the beginning of the hearing counsel for both parties drew to the Tribunal's attention that the bundle was lacking in evidence to support the charges: there were no invoices or bank statements to support the items in the Scott Schedule.”
“It is unfortunate that no forward planning was disclosed to the tribunal however the sums demanded are not excessively high in the context of this heritage building.”
“The Tribunal explained that they were unable to allow her evidence to be submitted since there was nothing in the bundle upon which she sought to rely.”
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.