LON/00AR/LSC/2026/0066 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AR/LSC/2026/0066 & others, decided 1 October 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 11B Cumberland Avenue, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 6HU and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 11B Cumberland Avenue, Hornchurch, Essex RM12 6HU
Decision date: 1 October 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: JS Estates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2025) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we find that the balance of the costs of the major works was reasonable and are payable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable in respect of gardening are reasonable and payable. There is no compelling evidence that the sums being sought are unreasonable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable in respect of gardening are reasonable and payable. There is no compelling evidence that the sums being sought are unreasonable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable in respect of gardening are reasonable and payable. There is no compelling evidence that the sums being sought are unreasonable.”
“There is no dispute that the Respondent has been wrongfully calculating the Applicant's contribution to the annual property insurance premium… the Applicant only pays 1/6th of the insurance premium for the building.”
“There is no dispute that the Respondent has been wrongfully calculating the Applicant's contribution to the annual property insurance premium… the Applicant only pays 1/6th of the insurance premium for the building.”
“Before the hearing we had been provided with an unpaginated bundle of papers running to some 304 pages. The non-pagination did not assist us the navigation of the bundle.”
“we do question the efficacy of the works, which were undertaken without the benefit of a surveyor's report.”
“Perhaps something of 'knee jerk' reaction to the issues raised by the Applicant in early 2024.”
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.