Decision summary

LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0958 — service charge decision

In LON/00AH/LSC/2025/0958, decided 2 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 232B London Road, Croydon, CR0 2TF and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 232B London Road, Croydon, CR0 2TF
Decision date: 2 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Chiltern Hills Estate Agency.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2025)£1,250£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, No Section 21B summary of rights, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2024)£1,250£0Disallowed entirelyNo Section 21B summary of rights, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Major works (2025)£1,216.67£0Disallowed entirelyNo Section 20 consultation, No Section 21B summary of rights, Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Major works (2024)£1,216.67£0Disallowed entirelyNo Section 20 consultation, No Section 21B summary of rights, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2025)£1,250£0Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, No Section 21B summary of rights, Landlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2024)£1,250£0Disallowed entirelyNo Section 21B summary of rights, Landlord could not evidence the cost

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“If these charges are in advance (i.e. for financial year 2025) then this does exceed the amount permitted by cl. 2.3(ii)(f).”
On other charges
“There has not been compliance with s.21B. The Applicant alleges that no service had been provided and says that the Respondent has failed to insure, manage or provide essential services. The Tribunal cannot find the charges to be reasonable on the information it has.”
On other charges
“There was no compliance with the consultation requirements or s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This charge would therefore be limited to £250.”
On major works
“As there has not been compliance, the Tribunal cannot find that these charges are validly due from the Applicant at this time. The Tribunal also cannot find the charges to be reasonable on the information it has.”
On major works
“If these charges are in advance (i.e. for financial year 2025) then this does exceed the amount permitted by cl. 2.3(ii)(f).”
On management fees
“There has not been compliance with s.21B. The Applicant alleges that no service had been provided and says that the Respondent has failed to insure, manage or provide essential services. The Tribunal cannot find the charges to be reasonable on the information it has.”
On management fees
“The Respondent did not comply with the requirements of the order of 31 October 2025 and has been debarred from defending. The Tribunal received confirmation by email dated 31 October 2025 that the Applicant had not responded to Applicant or served any documents.”
Of Respondent (Sajjad Hussain Shah)

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.