LON/00AH/LSC/2025/1046 — service charge decision
In LON/00AH/LSC/2025/1046, decided 12 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at 26 Vincent Road, Croydon CR0 6ED and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 26 Vincent Road, Croydon CR0 6ED
Decision date: 12 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hamways Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2024/2025) | £707.04 | £544.42 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2025/2026) | £649.57 | £500.17 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of insurance premiums for the years 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 should be reduced by 23%.”
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of insurance premiums for the years 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 should be reduced by 23%.”
“The absence of a complete bundle meant the Tribunal had to trawl through the parties' disclosure to try and find relevant information. This was time consuming and a breach of the Directions. Notwithstanding the absence of witness statements, the Tribunal determined to hear the case, though the failures meant the hearing was longer than necessary and preparation for the Tribunal far longer than it should have been.”
“The Respondent chose not to comply with directions, chose not to provide a witness statement and chose not to deal with the issues raised by the Applicant. Had they done so, they may have provided the Tribunal with a more accurate location factor multiplier for Croydon. They did not do so and it is not for the Tribunal to use its best guess as to what that location factor multiplier would be.”
“the failure to rectify the error or even acknowledge the issue was at the least careless.”
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.