LON/00AL/LSC/2025/0652 — service charge decision
In LON/00AL/LSC/2025/0652, decided 8 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 221, Tideslea Path, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 221, Tideslea Path, London
Decision date: 8 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | £440.78 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | £3,768.65 | — | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Administration charges | £443 | £443 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“In the light of the multiple problems with the actual charges for 2020/21 there is good reason to conclude that a reasonable charge for 2020/21 is no more (and quite possibly less) than the budgeted amount previously charged as an estimate. Therefore, none of the balancing charge of £440.78 is payable.”
“The unpaid portion of the estimated service charges for the period 1 January 2022 to 30 June 2023 in the aggregate sum of £3,768.65 will only be payable after a valid demand has been served in respect of these sums, in particular being a demand which complies with section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.”
“The administration charges totalling £443.00 in aggregate are payable in full.”
“In cross-examination he accepted that the level of financial management by the Applicants had been below average.”
“The Applicants sought to introduce new evidence on this issue at 4.10pm on the day of the hearing. That evidence was excluded by the tribunal on the basis that it would be unfairly prejudicial to the Respondent to include it at such a late stage and that the Applicants had failed to make a case to justify its inclusion at such a late stage.”
“by their own admission the Applicants did not themselves fully comply with the directions, and some of the Respondent's frustrations with the quality of the information provided by the Applicants were in our view justified.”
“This case has suffered from a lack of clarity over a considerable period of time which has made case management very difficult.”
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.