LON/00AJ/LSC/2024/0725 — service charge decision
In LON/00AJ/LSC/2024/0725, decided 7 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Various flats at Poplar Court, Old Ruislip Road, Northolt and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various flats at Poplar Court, Old Ruislip Road, Northolt
Decision date: 7 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Y & Y Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Lifts | — | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Lifts (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“there is no power for the landlord to demand contributions to a sinking fund or a reserve fund… we simply disallow contributions sought by the landlord.”
“the Tribunal will declare that only £250 per flat is recoverable in respect of the major works to the lifts, but that this is without prejudice to the landlord's right to apply for relief under section 20ZA.”
“The lift maintenance work in 2022 and was part of the major works contract… The lift maintenance contract in 2024 was not with Lift Syndicate Ltd and there is no evidence that the maintenance was the subject of a long term qualifying agreement. Accordingly, the lift maintenance sums claimed in 2023 and 2024 are not subject to a cap.”
“the lift maintenance sums claimed in 2023 and 2024 are not subject to a cap.”
“the landlord in our judgment had no alternative but to react as it did when blockages occurred.”
“The failure to ensure that counsel was adequately instructed to deal with all matters which might arise at a final hearing is potentially a breach of the respondent's duties under The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 rule 3, the Overriding Objective.”
“We consider that this is suspicious and calls for an explanation, but the landlord has proffered none.”
“The substitution was affected with no consultation at all. There must be substantial doubts about Mr Stavrick's suitability for continued employment.”
“the inability of counsel to give evidence meant that the Tribunal's determinations are necessarily less satisfactory than if the respondent's case had been put on the basis of instructions given in the course of the hearing.”
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.