LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0683 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0683, decided 27 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 5 Neville Court, 33 Canning Road, Croydon, London and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5 Neville Court, 33 Canning Road, Croydon, London
Decision date: 27 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-2024) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020-2024) | £410 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2020-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“no service charges are payable by the Applicant in respect of the service charges for the years 2020 to 2024 until valid service charge demands for those years are produced by the Respondent.”
“no service charges relating to reserve fund or payments on account are payable by the Applicant for the years in dispute.”
“the sum of £410 demanded by the Respondent is not a service charge and should be removed from the service charge demands.”
“the management fees demanded for the years in dispute are payable and reasonable.”
“the service charges demanded in connection with the garage are payable and reasonable.”
“the Applicant has failed to make its case in connection with the quality of works etc and failed to itemise costs in dispute, and that therefore the sums demanded in connection with those works, subject to the service of valid service charge demands, is payable and reasonable.”
“the tribunal noted that whilst it had evidence that the service charge demands served by Prime Property Management complied with the statutory requirements, it had no evidence that service charge demands served prior to the appointment of Prime Property Management did comply.”
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.