Decision summary

LON/00AK/LSC/2024/0758 — service charge decision

In LON/00AK/LSC/2024/0758, decided 17 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Boulevard House, 42 Elmore Road, Enfield, EN3 5PX and found largely for the leaseholder: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Boulevard House, 42 Elmore Road, Enfield, EN3 5PX
Decision date: 17 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Cleaning (2023)£1,098£1,098Allowed in full
Gardening & grounds (2023)£1,224£408ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Repairs & maintenance (2023)£1,789.68£1,000ReducedLandlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work
Other charges (2023)£250£0Disallowed entirely
Other charges (2023)£210.79£210.79Allowed in full
Repairs & maintenance (2023)£5,250£1,750ReducedNo Section 20 consultation
Cleaning (2024)£246£246Allowed in full
Gardening & grounds (2024)£204ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost
Repairs & maintenance (2024)£1,244£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Poor standard of work
Other charges (2024)£809£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Buildings insurance (2024)£6,101£4,800ReducedInsurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Repairs & maintenance (2024)£1,380£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Cleaning (2024)£381£304.80ReducedPoor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Management fees (2023)Withdrawn

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“Ms Mann confirmed that the actual charge, in the sum of £1,098, is not in dispute.”
On cleaning
“we find that the sum of £408 is reasonable and payable under this heading.”
On gardening & grounds
“The Respondent has failed to provide the Tribunal with invoices showing that costs in the sum of £1,789.68 were incurred... the amount recoverable by the Respondent under this heading is limited to the agreed sum of £1,000.”
On repairs & maintenance
“the actual figure is zero, and Ms Mann confirmed that the figure of zero is agreed.”
On other charges
“Ms Mann confirmed that the actual figure in the sum of £210.79 is agreed.”
On other charges
“the sum recoverable by the Respondent under this heading is limited to £250 per flat.”
On repairs & maintenance
“No representative of the Respondent was attended the hearing, and the Respondent had failed to comply with any of the Tribunal's directions.”
Of Lisa Property Ltd (Respondent)
“having considered all the circumstances, including the high degree of success of the Applicants and the Respondent's failure to participate in these proceedings (whilst also failing to concede the Applicants' case), the Tribunal is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make orders under section 20C of the 1985 Act and under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002.”
Of Lisa Property Ltd (Respondent)

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.