LON/00AH/LAC/2026/0006 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LAC/2026/0006, decided 11 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, Bird in Hand Court, 291-293 Sydenham Road, London CR20 2EL and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, Bird in Hand Court, 291-293 Sydenham Road, London CR20 2EL
Decision date: 11 May 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd..
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2025) | £372 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2025) | £5 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2025) | £60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2025) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2025) | £243 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2025) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The notice fee and land registration fee (total of £377) are specifically excluded under clause 18.3 which states No registration fee is payable to the landlord.”
“The notice fee and land registration fee (total of £377) are specifically excluded under clause 18.3 which states No registration fee is payable to the landlord.”
“The admin costs of £60 in relation to the ground rent account are said to be payable under clause 7.4.4. This is plainly wrong. The latter clause relates to consent or approval which was not a factor in this case.”
“there is no clause in the lease that contemplates this and in any event it is inconceivable that any work done by the Respondent amounted to anything like this cost (£480).”
“The DRA referral fee was pre-emptive and therefore unreasonable.”
“The further administration costs (unaccountably exactly the same amount as the non-service of notice fee) are disallowed. The work allegedly carried out has not been sufficiently evidenced and there is no lease clause that supports it.”
“Can it really be said that the Respondent was genuinely contemplating forfeiture when they had not even served lawful demands for payment? The instruction of debt recovery agents was precipitous in the extreme. This was the first contact that the Respondent had with the Applicant!”
“the Applicant asked for an explanation of the costs incurred. This has only been provided now in the Tribunal proceedings in what appears to be some hasty post-rationalisation.”
“The further administration costs (unaccountably exactly the same amount as the non-service of notice fee) are disallowed.”
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.