LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0603 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2024/0603, decided 11 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 23 Alexandra Road, Croydon, CR0 6EY and found largely for the leaseholder: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 23 Alexandra Road, Croydon, CR0 6EY
Decision date: 11 September 2025
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £519.69 | £212.79 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £401.81 | £197.01 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | £700.92 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2024) | £1,564.68 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £134.52 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2024) | £141.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2024) | £216 | £75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent charged a management fee calculated as 18% of the premium and broker fee in 2023 … a management fee recalculated as 7.5% of the premium (excluding the broker fee) was reasonable … a management fee of £212.79 for 2023 … was reasonable.”
“the Respondent charged a management fee calculated as … 15% of the premium and broker fee in 2024 … a management fee recalculated as 7.5% of the premium (excluding the broker fee) was reasonable … a management fee of … £197.01 for 2024 was reasonable.”
“the lessee has no contractual liability to pay the costs incurred by the lessor in maintaining the garden area for Flat C and those costs cannot be recovered by it as relevant service charge expenditure.”
“the lessee has no contractual liability to pay the costs incurred by the lessor in maintaining the garden area for Flat C and those costs cannot be recovered by it as relevant service charge expenditure.”
“it is beyond doubt from the photographic evidence supplied by the Respondent to the Applicants [137-140] that the gritting was carried out to a different property altogether.”
“there are no communal (or other) fire doors in the property and that no inspection in this regard had been carried out by the Respondent … this item of expenditure had not been reasonably incurred by the Respondent and is disallowed entirely.”
“When the Applicants pointed out that there are in fact no communal doors at the property [145], the Respondent agreed that no inspection was necessary [142]. Nevertheless, the Respondent went on to demand this sum on 19 November 2024 [146].”
“it is beyond doubt from the photographic evidence supplied by the Respondent to the Applicants [137-140] that the gritting was carried out to a different property altogether.”
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.