LON/00AG/LSC/2025/1275 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2025/1275, decided 31 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Ground Floor Flat, 84 Compayne Gardens, London NW6 3RU and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ground Floor Flat, 84 Compayne Gardens, London NW6 3RU
Decision date: 31 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pennine Estates.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | £150 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The respondent is not however entitled to charge a management fee for both her own fees and a second charge for her managing agents. This is a double recovery of costs and is not permitted under the terms of the lease.”
“Adminstration/late payment fees are not payable under the terms of the lease and therefore the tribunal disallows this sum in full.”
“Adminstration/late payment fees are not payable under the terms of the lease and therefore the tribunal disallows this sum in full.”
“The tribunal finds the annual management agent fee of £3,000 charged by Pennine to be excessive and reduces this to £1,500. However, the tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence provided, that Pennine had in any event, managed the building to a reasonable standard during the relevant period and therefore reduces the adjusted sum of £300 payable by the respondent by 50%. This provides a sum of £150 that is payable for management agents' fees.”
“the tribunal finds that not only were the management fees of £3,000 charged by Pennine excessive, there also appears to be an element of double recovery in respect of their other charges. Therefore, the tribunal determined it was reasonable to reduce these to 50% of the costs charged.”
“the tribunal finds that not only were the management fees of £3,000 charged by Pennine excessive, there also appears to be an element of double recovery in respect of their other charges. Therefore, the tribunal determined it was reasonable to reduce these to 50% of the costs charged.”
“The tribunal found the presentation of the applicant's case to be disorganised as Ms Petani was not assisted by the absence of her client and the lack of any witness statement. Further, Properties Actually Limited had only become involved in the management of the subject property sometime in late 2024 or early 2025, having previously only been involved on the administration side. Therefore, Ms Petani was without any detailed knowledge of the management of the building during the period in issue and was unable to provide the tribunal with any details as to what Ms Saleh had carried out for the £2,000 management fee she had personally charged the leaseholders, or fully explain why the respondents were being charged three separate charges in respect of (i) Building maintenance and management fees; (ii) Freeholder's management fee and (iii) Professional Fees (administration fees).”
“the tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence provided, that Pennine had in any event, managed the building to a reasonable standard during the relevant period”
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.