Decision summary

LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0361 — service charge decision

In LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0361, decided 13 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, 37 Reddown Road, Coulsdon, CR5 1AN and found largely for the leaseholder: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flat 4, 37 Reddown Road, Coulsdon, CR5 1AN
Decision date: 13 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: PB Construction Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Major works (2020)£17,040£0Disallowed entirelyNo Section 20 consultation, Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Utilities (2020-2024)£5,432.40£0Disallowed entirelyCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid, Other grounds
Buildings insurance (2020)£134.52£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Buildings insurance (2021)£274.52£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Buildings insurance (2022)£296.74£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Buildings insurance (2023)£324.52£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Buildings insurance (2024)£91.63£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2020)£50£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2021)£100£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2022)£100£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2023)£100£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2024)£30£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Administration charges (2020-2024)£12,400£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid
Other charges (2020)£2,300£0Disallowed entirelyDemand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The Tribunal also finds that no section 20 consultation was ever carried out in relation to the roof. ... None of the service charge demands comply with sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.”
On major works
“The electricity invoicing is entirely unsatisfactory as it conflates personal consumption by the lessees with common part usage. Only the cost of lighting common parts falls within the service charge liability under clause 3 and the Fifth Schedule of the lease. No apportionment of the total cost has been provided.”
On utilities
“None of the service charge demands comply with sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ... Therefore the demands were invalid.”
On buildings insurance
“None of the service charge demands comply with sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ... Therefore the demands were invalid.”
On buildings insurance
“it rejects the respondent's case that a £10 daily charge is payable, finding that the lease provides for 4% above Barclays Base Rate.”
On administration charges
“The Tribunal determines that the amount of service charges payable by the applicant is nil.”
On other charges
“The Tribunal notes that Companies House records that PB Construction Limited was dissolved on 13 February 2024.”
Of Respondents / PB Construction Ltd / Kai Richardson
“The Tribunal gives no weight to the witness statement of Mr Richardson. That of Mr Carson was not before the Tribunal.”
Of Respondents
“No explanation was given for the non-attendance of the respondent's witnesses.”
Of Respondents
“It had never sent notice of change of landlord to the applicant. However, by 21.07.2023 at the latest, the freehold was vested in Michael, Son, Ford & Co. Limited ... Therefore, by 20 July 2023 at the latest, Silver Post (BVI) Ltd were not entitled to serve further service charge demands arising after that date.”
Of Respondents / Silver Post (BVI) Ltd

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.