Decision summary

LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0882 — service charge decision

In LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0882, decided 23 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 70 The Woodlands, London, SE19 3EH and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 70 The Woodlands, London, SE19 3EH
Decision date: 23 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2022)£2,436£2,436Allowed in full
Other charges (2023)£2,504.04£2,504.04Allowed in full
Other charges (2024)£2,504.01£2,504.01Allowed in full
Other charges (2025)£2,448.01£2,448.01Allowed in full
Other charges (2026)£2,448.01£2,448.01Allowed in full
Major works (2022)£13,545.57£13,545.57conceded
Cleaning (2022)£100£100Allowed in full

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The tribunal determines that the service charge estimates for each year ending 2022 to 2026 are payable by the Respondent.”
On other charges
“The tribunal determines that the service charge estimates for each year ending 2022 to 2026 are payable by the Respondent.”
On other charges
“The tribunal determines that the service charge estimates for each year ending 2022 to 2026 are payable by the Respondent.”
On other charges
“The tribunal determines that the service charge estimates for each year ending 2022 to 2026 are payable by the Respondent.”
On other charges
“The tribunal determines that the service charge estimates for each year ending 2022 to 2026 are payable by the Respondent.”
On other charges
“During the hearing the Respondent conceded that this sum was payable and therefore the tribunal did not hear evidence on this issue.”
On major works
“It was confirmed by the Applicant's Representative that service charge accounts had not been produced or sent to the Respondent within the timescales set out in the tribunal's directions. Despite being referred to as "actuals" within the Applicant's Statement of Case, the service charges claimed were estimates in respect of each service charge year before the tribunal.”
Of Applicant (The Woodlands Beulah Hill Limited)
“The Respondent complains that this report was not shared with him at the time it was issued and he only received it as part of the tribunal disclosure.”
Of Applicant (The Woodlands Beulah Hill Limited)

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.