LON/00AJ/LSC/2024/0241 — service charge decision
In LON/00AJ/LSC/2024/0241, decided 16 January 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at 100 Skyline House, Dickens Yard, Longfield Avenue, Ealing Broadway, London W5 2BJ and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 100 Skyline House, Dickens Yard, Longfield Avenue, Ealing Broadway, London W5 2BJ
Decision date: 16 January 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Lee Baron / St George West London Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2022) | £1,123.55 | £1,123.55 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022) | £209.38 | £209.38 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £1,146.01 | £1,146.01 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022) | £725.37 | £725.37 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2023) | £860.52 | £860.52 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022) | £1,637.17 | £1,637.17 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2023) | £1,616.83 | £1,616.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £858.36 | £858.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £338.32 | £338.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £145.21 | £145.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £2,016 | £2,016 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £2,225 | £2,225 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £631.32 | £631.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £824.78 | £824.78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £472.87 | £472.87 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £57.35 | £57.35 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £441.18 | £441.18 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £203.46 | £203.46 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £659.82 | £659.82 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £511.47 | £511.47 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £909.96 | £909.96 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £607.17 | £607.17 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of management fees and Motiv8 management fees is the sum claimed in the service charge demand, namely £1,123.55 and 209.38 for 2022”
“The Applicants did not offer any evidence relating to the Motive8 management fees. The Tribunal noted that these fees related to the management of the gym and spa about which no complaints were made.”
“The Tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of management fees and Motiv8 management fees is the sum claimed in the service charge demand, namely … £1,146.01 for 2023.”
“The Tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of staff costs is the sum claimed in the service charge demand, namely £725.37 for 2022”
“The Tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of staff costs is the sum claimed in the service charge demand, namely £725.37 for 2022 and £860.52 for 2023.”
“The Tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of the receptionist and concierge is the sum claimed in the service charge demand, namely £1,637.17 for 2022”
“The lack of any expert evidence has also hampered the Applicants' case. There was no evidence before the tribunal to suggest that there was a clear cause of the issues faced by the Applicants which should have easily been identified and resolved.”
“the claim was not particularised and no market rental value was provided for the property. There was no expert evidence to demonstrate what loss was suffered, if any, by the applicants.”
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.