LON/00AL/LSC/2025/1207 — service charge decision
In LON/00AL/LSC/2025/1207, decided 28 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 35 Fairview Drive, Thamesmead, London SE28 8QT and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 35 Fairview Drive, Thamesmead, London SE28 8QT
Decision date: 28 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Property Services Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2025) | £140 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2025) | £90 | £90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2025) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2025) | £30 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | £110 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | £185 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2025) | £1,800 | £1,800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2025) | £2,205 | £2,205 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2025) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“there was no event triggering a contractual entitlement for the Landlord for a reasonable registration fee in 2025 pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Fourth Schedule; and in any event, the registration fee, if it had become contractually due, is not reasonable.”
“The administration charge of £90 demanded on or around 7 February 2025 is payable by the Applicant (as the Applicant accepts)”
“administration charge of £90 dated 1 August 2025 ... are not payable because each one is not contractually due under the terms of the Lease or, if it is contractually due, it is not reasonable”
“the legal review fee of £90 ... are not payable because each one is not contractually due under the terms of the Lease or, if it is contractually due, it is not reasonable”
“a Land Registry fee of £30 dated 19 September 2025 ... are not payable because each one is not contractually due under the terms of the Lease or, if it is contractually due, it is not reasonable”
“a 'referral fee' of £110 dated 19 September 2025 ... are not payable because each one is not contractually due under the terms of the Lease or, if it is contractually due, it is not reasonable”
“the absence of evidence showing any substantive response from the Respondent's agents is a relevant circumstance when assessing the reasonableness of the subsequent charges.”
“Nor is there any evidence explaining the necessity for separate charges of £90, £90, £90, £110 and £185 in circumstances where the recovery activity appears to form part of a single course of conduct directed towards the same alleged arrears.”
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.