LON/00AL/LSC/2023/0259 — service charge decision
In LON/00AL/LSC/2023/0259, decided 21 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 19 Bertrand Way, Thamesmead, London SE28 8LL and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 19 Bertrand Way, Thamesmead, London SE28 8LL
Decision date: 21 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Property Services.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening & grounds (2019/20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2019/20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019/20) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020/21) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021/22) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022/23) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2019/20) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023/24) | — | £1,170 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“due to the lack of evidence for the works carried out under the heading's 'grounds' and 'general' maintenance, 'pathway repairs', 'health and safety audit' and 'major works', these sums were not payable.”
“due to the lack of evidence for the works carried out under the heading's 'grounds' and 'general' maintenance, 'pathway repairs', 'health and safety audit' and 'major works', these sums were not payable.”
“No evidence had been provided as to the nature of these works, or for the pathway repairs undertaken in the same period. The Applicant again contended that without evidence to support this expenditure these charges were not allowable.”
“the sums collected were deemed disproportionate to the total service charge costs. For example, on some occasions the contribution being almost 50% of the total service charge bill. These sums were considered excessive for this type of Property and estate.”
“The Tribunal noted no planned maintenance programme was available for scrutiny … The Tribunal has accordingly reduced the contributions to the reserve fund to a more reasonable level, given the lack of such information available to it.”
“The Tribunal noted no planned maintenance programme was available for scrutiny … The Tribunal has accordingly reduced the contributions to the reserve fund to a more reasonable level, given the lack of such information available to it.”
“The Tribunal had noted that the behaviour of the Respondent had been wholly unreasonable. Had the requested documentation been submitted in accordance with the Directions then much Tribunal time would have been saved.”
“The Tribunal also noted the initial action of the Respondent's representative (i.e. the managing agent) had been to appoint lawyers in the absence of any engagement with the Applicant. The Respondent and their Representative(s) had then subsequently failed to attend the Hearing. It would therefore be wholly unfair for Tribunal to allow any recovery of costs on the part of the Respondent.”
“The Respondent made no contribution to the Application and provided no information to support the expenditure detailed on the service charges posted on the web portal. Therefore, no supporting information was available to explain many of the expenses shown in the service charge accounts and budget.”
“under normal circumstances, such matters would be passed to a specialist in the Respondent's representative's office for their attention however on this occasion this had not happened, for which he apologised.”
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.