LON/00AK/LSC/2024/0766 — service charge decision
In LON/00AK/LSC/2024/0766, decided 14 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 15, 17, 19 and 19A Bridgenhall Road, Enfield and found largely for the landlord: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15, 17, 19 and 19A Bridgenhall Road, Enfield
Decision date: 14 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £1,012 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2024) | £2,400 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2024) | £432 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2024) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2024) | £416.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Management fees (2024) | £809.54 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the demand made before payment on 8 November 2024, as it related to insurance rent under the lease, was not payable.”
“the lease makes no provision for advance service charges. The purported advance service charge for a reinstatement and disrepair survey is not payable.”
“in each case the demands were advance service charge demands unwarranted by the lease, and so not payable for that reason alone.”
“in each case the demands were advance service charge demands unwarranted by the lease, and so not payable for that reason alone.”
“in each case the demands were advance service charge demands unwarranted by the lease, and so not payable for that reason alone.”
“in each case the demands were advance service charge demands unwarranted by the lease, and so not payable for that reason alone.”
“we do think that the correspondence with the broker demonstrates that there was a policy, of some sort, in relation to the property... But nonetheless... Ms Burzio's submissions do lead us to have considerable doubts about the Applicant's insurance policy, not assuaged by what we consider to be the implausible arguments put forward by the Applicant for his failure to provide – at the very least, to the Tribunal – any appropriate details of the policy.”
“Our concluded view on the matter is that Mr Soanes was essentially asserting that disagreeing with him on a matter of fact should be interpreted as the party disagreeing behaving improperly, a proposition we reject.”
“This argument is irrelevant to whether a service charge can be demanded, and, with all due respect to Mr Soanes, borders on (and, in the form in the letter, goes well beyond the border of) the absurd.”
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.