LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0794 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0794, decided 4 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 3 Doble Court, Addington Road, Sanderstead, South Croydon CR2 8RN and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 Doble Court, Addington Road, Sanderstead, South Croydon CR2 8RN
Decision date: 4 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: PM Lettings (Pollard Machin).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022/23) | £1,623.60 | £1,623.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023/24) | £1,785.96 | £1,785.96 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25) | £1,785.96 | £1,785.96 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024/25) | £1,296 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Dispensation granted conditionally |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the demand for £1,623.60 in respect of the 2022/23 service charge year is payable.”
“The tribunal determines that the demand for £1,785.96 in respect of the 2023/24 service charge year is payable.”
“The tribunal determines that the demand for £1,785.96 in respect of the 2024/25 service charge year is payable.”
“The Major Works charges payable by the Applicant are limited to £250, unless and until dispensation under s.20ZA is granted.”
“The tribunal found it somewhat disingenuous for Mr Attride to claim he does not know who is demanding service charges on behalf of the Respondent, given the copious correspondence he submitted in the bundle, which include Mr Joyce's company name of PM Lettings and a website address of www.pollardmachin.co.uk.”
“The manner in which the Applicant's emails were written was not always clear and therefore the Respondent/their agent frequently was not able to answer the questions posed. This caused frustration, misunderstandings and hostility. The parties may have been able to resolve the dispute had they attempted to communicate in a more appropriate manner.”
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.