LON/00AJ/LSC/2024/0338 — service charge decision
In LON/00AJ/LSC/2024/0338, decided 24 March 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 1 Kingswood Terrace, London, W4 5BN and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1 Kingswood Terrace, London, W4 5BN
Decision date: 24 March 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Montalt Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-2023) | £325 | £325 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-2024) | £325 | £325 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | £1,204.90 | £1,204.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £1,250.65 | £1,250.65 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022-2023) | £270 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2022-2023) | £636 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant confirmed that the Respondent had now paid the outstanding reserve funds and the service charges, with payment being received on or around 19 February 2025.”
“the Applicant confirmed that the Respondent had now paid the outstanding reserve funds and the service charges, with payment being received on or around 19 February 2025.”
“the Applicant confirmed that the Respondent had now paid the outstanding reserve funds and the service charges, with payment being received on or around 19 February 2025.”
“the Applicant confirmed that the Respondent had now paid the outstanding reserve funds and the service charges, with payment being received on or around 19 February 2025.”
“The Tribunal finds that the administration charges were not reasonable as the Respondent was not provided with the demands at the address she had nominated.”
“the Tribunal has not been provided with a clear explanation as to how the figure of £636 from the debt collection company has been arrived at.”
“the Tribunal notes that the documents were not marked as being served by email. The Tribunal therefore accepts the Respondent's evidence that she did not receive the service charge requests by email and the application for payment at pages 207 and 208 were sent to the 5 Burlington address.”
“the Tribunal finds that even when the accounts were provided by the Applicant these were difficult to follow. It was not possible to say with certainty that previous administration charges had been correctly removed from the account.”
“the Tribunal has not been provided with a clear explanation as to how the figure of £636 from the debt collection company has been arrived at.”
“This information was not provided to the Respondent until after proceedings had commenced and administration fees had already been added to her account for late payments.”
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.