LON/00AP/LSC/2024/0159 — service charge decision
In LON/00AP/LSC/2024/0159, decided 24 January 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 22 Alfoxtone Avenue, London, N15 3DD and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, 22 Alfoxtone Avenue, London, N15 3DD
Decision date: 24 January 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Strollmoor Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £396.45 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £449.81 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £427.11 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £410.63 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“as insurance costs are not payable either as a service charge or an administration charge under the lease, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the insurance costs under section 27A or paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act.”
“as insurance costs are not payable either as a service charge or an administration charge under the lease, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the insurance costs under section 27A or paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act.”
“as insurance costs are not payable either as a service charge or an administration charge under the lease, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the insurance costs under section 27A or paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act.”
“as insurance costs are not payable either as a service charge or an administration charge under the lease, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the insurance costs under section 27A or paragraph 5 of Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act.”
“there was no evidence from the Respondent that it issued the claim with a view to subsequently bringing forfeiture proceedings … the £50 could only be recoverable under the lease as an administration charge, and absent evidence the Respondent reasonably contemplated forfeiture proceedings … there is no other provision under the lease by which this sum is payable.”
“Applicants are informed on the application form that they must provide a copy of their lease when submitting the application. Mr Sukara did not provide his.”
“it was only on the morning of the hearing that he attended with a full copy of the 34 page lease, plus a 10-page deed of variation.”
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.