LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0816 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0816 & others, decided 15 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 192 Whitestone Way, Croydon, Surrey and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 192 Whitestone Way, Croydon, Surrey
Decision date: 15 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Haus Block Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2019-2024) | £204 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2019-2024) | £1,570 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Duplication of charges |
| Staffing & concierge (2019-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £1,779.96 | £1,600 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2019-2024) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-2024) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2019-2024) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | £1,365.87 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The paucity and quality of service charge information about the Flat and Building fell below that typically expected of a reasonable agent. The complaints about the maintenance of the building made by the Respondents were upheld.”
“The Tribunal concluded a lack of continuity in the appointed managing agent may have led to unnecessary administration charges. They also recognised that the charges are above average for a dwelling of this type and the Applicants failed to offer an evidential basis for them.”
“The Respondents failed to convince the Tribunal that the concierge charges were unreasonable. These charges were properly Demanded, with no compelling evidence presented to justify the assertion of unreasonableness.”
“Counsel for the Applicant did take the Tribunal to a Statement of Account (p431) that justified the expenditure and Demand for £1,600 but failed to explain £179.96 and accordingly this amount is disallowed.”
“A rebate of £431.20 from the charges to reflect the costs of heating the communal parts.”
“Reimbursement of £256 to reflect reduced insurance costs.”
“The Tribunal found the Scott Schedule prepared by the parties unhelpful in resolution of this matter. The parties had failed to isolate the principal elements of the dispute in their submissions. The service charge information provided in the Bundle was not comprehensive, detailed or focussed on the matters in dispute. This made it difficult for the Respondent to extract and present examples of unreasonable charges or make suggestions for alternative charges for services. This paucity and low-level accuracy of information made the Tribunal task of review and assessment of the charges challenging.”
“The Tribunal reviewed the documents referred to in Tables 1 and 2 and found the information difficult to comprehend. The bundle did not present service charges for the Flat only for blocks of residential accommodation referred to as the 'New South Quarter'. The Tribunal were unable to deduce from the submitted materials a better understanding of the charges.”
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.