LON/00AK/LSC/2024/0119 — service charge decision
In LON/00AK/LSC/2024/0119, decided 18 March 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 20 Alma House, 4 Sebastopol Road, London N9 0PT and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 20 Alma House, 4 Sebastopol Road, London N9 0PT
Decision date: 18 March 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2024) | £4,212.34 | £1,675.34 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2024) | £4,003.45 | £4,003.45 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £223.31 | £223.31 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £5,215.39 | £5,215.39 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £2,045.30 | £2,045.30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £1,944.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2024) | £1,453.75 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2024) | £1,935.42 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024) | £388.51 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Utilities (2024) | £7,187.15 | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“There is no clear explanation as to why the scaffolding costs increased from the estimate of £83,000. The Tribunal is not satisfied that these costs were reasonably incurred and limits the amount to the estimate.”
“The difference between estimate and final account is less than £10,000 and as the works were tendered accepts the respondents case”
“The Tribunal accepts the respondent's case. See decision.”
“The Tribunal accepts the respondents case. See decision.”
“The Tribunal accepts the respondents case. See decision.”
“The Tribunal finds in favor of the Applicant. See decision.”
“The Tribunal noted at the hearing that no survey evidence of any kind, oral or written was included in its case, so as to explain or justify the need for these major works. Ms Raval could not herself give evidence as to why works were required. The Tribunal was very concerned about this gap in evidence.”
“the tribunal finds that an incident of verbal abuse did occur from a contractor and considers this to be unacceptable.”
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.