LON/00AG/LSC/2026/0173 — service charge decision
In LON/00AG/LSC/2026/0173, decided 5 October 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 221 Weddington Road, London NW5 4PQ and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 221 Weddington Road, London NW5 4PQ
Decision date: 5 October 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024-25) | £5,876.55 | £5,876.55 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024-25) | £187.09 | £187.09 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £627.62 | £627.62 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal was not satisfied that a proportion in the increase in the costs of works compared to the sum set out in the notice of intention will, in the final reckoning, include sums which are not recoverable such as sums relating to asbestos removal and the door replacement programme.”
“the Tribunal noted that the frequency of supervision had reduced from twice a week to once a week and was satisfied that the same was reasonable for as long as the works were continuing.”
“the indirect costs fell within the normal percentage range of such costs and were entirely reasonable. They did not consider that the inclusion of fire safety services both within indirect costs for the works and within the Applicant's regular service charge was double counting.”
“The Tribunal had some sympathy with the Applicant's lack of trust in the Respondent and considered that it would have been helpful to leaseholders if the Respondent had communicated better and more frequently to keep them up to date on the progress of the works, the reasons for the delays, and the consequent increase in the estimated service charge.”
“such a document if seen by leaseholders was likely to confuse.”
“Whilst the heading in the letter at [54] could have been clearer by adding 'estimated' to 'Your contribution towards these works is £18,143.67'”
“The Respondent acknowledged that it did not inform leaseholders of the Deed of Variation or increase in cost of the works.”
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.