LON/00AR/LSC/2026/0121 — service charge decision
In LON/00AR/LSC/2026/0121, decided 1 September 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 24 Green Park Court, 16 Kew Close, Romford, Essex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 24 Green Park Court, 16 Kew Close, Romford, Essex
Decision date: 1 September 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Trinity (Estates) Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2024-25) | £193,153 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2025-26) | £194,687 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-25) | £33,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2025-26) | £27,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-25) | £10,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2025-26) | £10,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2025-26) | £10,860 | £10,860 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds that the budgeted service charges are payable, as demanded, in the service charge years 2024-25 and 2025-26, save for the contributions to the reserve fund deemed not recoverable under (ii) below.”
“the Tribunal finds that the budgeted service charges are payable, as demanded, in the service charge years 2024-25 and 2025-26, save for the contributions to the reserve fund deemed not recoverable under (ii) below.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the redecoration fund collected is no greater than is reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the redecoration fund collected is no greater than is reasonable.”
“the Tribunal determines that the Applicant's proportion of the Building Safety reserve fund contribution is not payable or reasonable.”
“the Tribunal determines that the Applicant's proportion of the Building Safety reserve fund contribution is not payable or reasonable.”
“the Tribunal does not know, based on the evidence of Mr Dale, what the building safety fund is for. Building safety covers a wide range of matters, some of which may fall to be paid by the leaseholders and some of which may not. Without a proper explanation as to the purpose of the fund and what works are anticipated, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Manager has considered what is reasonably necessary, that a reasonable process was followed or that the Manager has adopted a reasonable course of action, collecting no greater amount than is reasonable.”
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.