LON/00AP/LSC/2024/0264 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AP/LSC/2024/0264 & others, decided 9 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at Elm Court, Cholmeley Park, London N6 5EJ and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Elm Court, Cholmeley Park, London N6 5EJ
Decision date: 9 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019/20) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2020/21) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021/22) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022/23) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2020/21) | £2,475.08 | £2,000 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Legal & professional costs (2021/22) | £4,104 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2022/23) | £630 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021/22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022/23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022/23) | £900 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £2,323 | £2,323 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £2,400 | £2,400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022/23) | £2,400 | £2,400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £765 | £765 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“we deduct £29.00 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the insurance of garage 9… we deduct the sum of £194.20 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the directors' and officers' insurance.”
“we deduct £29.00 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the insurance of garage 9… we deduct the sum of £194.20 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the directors' and officers' insurance.”
“we deduct £29.00 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the insurance of garage 9… we deduct the sum of £194.20 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the directors' and officers' insurance.”
“we deduct £29.00 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the insurance of garage 9… we deduct the sum of £194.20 for the years 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 in relation to the directors' and officers' insurance.”
“in the absence of any application from the Respondent for dispensation, this charge is limited to £2,000.00.”
“the Respondent has done nothing to demonstrate what work was done or why it was done, nothing to demonstrate that it was effective and nothing to show that it was reasonable to incur and then charge these amounts to the service in whole or in part. In the circumstances of the Respondent's complete failure to deal properly with clear concerns that had been raised by the Applicants, these sums are not payable at all.”
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.