LON/00AJ/LSC/2023/0470 — service charge decision
In LON/00AJ/LSC/2023/0470, decided 12 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 28 disputed service charge items at 37 Greystoke Court, Hanger Lane, London W5 1EN and reached a mixed result: 20 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 37 Greystoke Court, Hanger Lane, London W5 1EN
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: David Adams Surveyors Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | £56,295 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £54,000 | £9,180 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | £62,005 | £62,005 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | £92,559 | £15,725 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Administration charges (2022-2023) | £4,700 | £2,400 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2023) | £4,454.35 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2023) | £2,013.80 | £2,013.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2022-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2022-2023) | £7,212 | £7,212 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-2024) | £68,314 | £68,314 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2023-2024) | £102,660 | £34,220 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Lifts (2023-2024) | £15,840 | £15,840 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2023-2024) | £60,884 | £20,295 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £51,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £27,487 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £2,184 | £1,092 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | — | £897 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | — | £471 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £9,711.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | — | £471.43 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £1,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £6,857.14 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £600 | £300 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £30,384 | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Lifts (2024-2025) | £33,000 | £33,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2024-2025) | £33,000 | £33,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024-2025) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Administration charges (2024-2025) | £1,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“We consider that this charge was reasonable and recoverable. There is however one aspect we were not happy with. This was the extra cost for the payment by instalments by the Respondent. This sum ought to be met by the Respondent as it is entirely for their benefit.”
“The work had only partially been completed accordingly we consider that only the amount completed should be charged. This represents 1/6 of the total sum namely £9180.”
“The arguments on this item were a mirror image of the previous year. For the same reasons we allow the sum in full.”
“The arguments on this item were a mirror image of the previous year. We allow £15725.”
“We consider that this is a legitimate charge for the managing agent to make but a reasonable cost is £50 per unit making a total of £2400. This is the sum we allow.”
“We consider that the work done by Capital Fire doors was not fit for purpose and we disallow the sum.”
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.