LON/00AK/LBC/2025/0601 — service charge decision
In LON/00AK/LBC/2025/0601, decided 27 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 24 Shropshire House, 15 Cavendish Close, Edmonton N18 2HT and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 24 Shropshire House, 15 Cavendish Close, Edmonton N18 2HT
Decision date: 27 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the property interior was not in good and substantial repair and condition. The Tribunal noted that the bedroom ceiling and walls appeared to be in extremely poor condition, with sections of paintwork and plaster coming loose.”
“to make out a breach of clause 4 (3) (a) of the lease, the Applicant would have needed at the very least to document the dates and times when access was refused or not given.”
“the Applicant's insurance in respect of the property (and possibly the building) may have been made void or voidable by reason of the Respondent's absence for over 30 days and/or use of the property as a storage facility.”
“to make out a breach of clause 4 (8) (A) of the lease, the Applicant would have needed to provide the fire safety policies for the block and/or a fire risk assessment or other evidence of risk or danger.”
“Ms Zielinska did not pursue the Applicant's allegation that the Respondent had breached clause 3 (2) (c) of the lease, admitting that there had been no failure to make contributions.”
“The Tribunal considered that it would have been helpful to have more information about the alleged repair defects and their cause.”
“The Tribunal considered that it would have been helpful for the Insurance Policy to have been included in the Bundle and for the Applicant to have provided supporting evidence about the Respondent's non-occupation.”
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.