LON/00AS/LSC/2024/0144 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AS/LSC/2024/0144 & others, decided 29 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 20 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2, 3 & 6 Pentagon House, Flat 3 Meade House, Flat 4 Kingfisher House, Flat 5 Wells House, Warren Close, Hayes and reached a mixed result: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2, 3 & 6 Pentagon House, Flat 3 Meade House, Flat 4 Kingfisher House, Flat 5 Wells House, Warren Close, Hayes
Decision date: 29 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2022) | £9,740.73 | £9,436.56 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £47,579.66 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Utilities (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £259.33 | £259.33 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £31.68 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £427.68 | £400 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Utilities (2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal have made modest deductions of £7,300 out of a contract in the sum of £364,777. Each Applicant is therefore entitled to a deduction of £304.17.”
“Clean soffits and fascias (£1,391.94). The Tribunal does not consider that this work was carried out to an adequate standard. The Tribunal disallows £700.”
“Clean stone sills (£1,265.40). The Tribunal does not consider that this work was carried out to an adequate standard. The Tribunal disallows £600.”
“Rain water goods (£2,480.18). The Tribunal does not consider that this work was carried out to an adequate standard. The Tribunal disallows £1,000.”
“Clean Roof Tiles and replaced damaged tiles. The Tribunal does not consider that this work was carried out to an adequate standard and disallow £500.”
“External Decoration and Woodwork (£8,225.10). The Tribunal does not consider that this work was carried out to an adequate standard and disallow £3,000.”
“The Applicants have come together because they are concerned about the level of the service charges that they have been required to pay. This has been instigated by the cost of a programme of cyclical repairs. They also complain of the quality of the works. Their attack is unfocussed. Their witness statement extends to just 8 pages. Their witness statement does not address the numerous photographs in their bundle of 1,275 pages and the videos which they have provided.”
“The problem that the Tribunal faces is that none of the photographs are dated. The Applicants have produced no evidence of who took the photos or the block to which they relate. They are no more than 'snapshots'.”
“The Respondent has been represented by Counsel with two representatives from her instructing solicitor in attendance. These tribunals are intended to be informal and have adopted procedures so that parties do not need to be represented.”
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.