LON/00AS/LSC/2024/0617 — service charge decision
In LON/00AS/LSC/2024/0617, decided 26 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 10 Tollgate Drive, Hayes, Middlesex and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 10 Tollgate Drive, Hayes, Middlesex
Decision date: 26 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Property Services.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening & grounds (2020) | £2,212.80 | £2,212.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2021) | £2,212.80 | £2,212.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £2,890.80 | £2,890.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £4,381.30 | £4,381.30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £2,863.17 | £2,863.17 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020) | £3,250.95 | £3,250.95 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £38,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable by the Applicant are those which have been demanded from him by the Respondent in respect of this item for each of the service charge years in question and there is nothing to suggest that the amounts are unreasonable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable by the Applicant are those which have been demanded from him by the Respondent in respect of this item for each of the service charge years in question and there is nothing to suggest that the amounts are unreasonable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable by the Applicant are those which have been demanded from him by the Respondent in respect of this item for each of the service charge years in question and there is nothing to suggest that the amounts are unreasonable.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable in respect of general maintenance, being an eighth of the figures set out in paragraph 12 above for this item for YE 2020 and 2021 are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“The tribunal determines that the amounts payable in respect of general maintenance, being an eighth of the figures set out in paragraph 12 above for this item for YE 2020 and 2021 are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of the management fees for YE 2020 is as per the amounts demanded by the Respondent, which are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“There has been a lack of clarity from the Applicant as to what issues are in fact to be determined by the tribunal. The application filed by the Applicant is lacking in detail and fails to identify any particular service charge year or any particular amount of service or administration charge.”
“The Applicant has failed to set out with any clarity what the relevance of that decision is in relation to the service charge years which are to be determined by this tribunal in these proceedings. He has failed to draw out any similarities and failed to argue how it is applicable to the issues before this tribunal.”
“Overall, the tribunal came to the conclusion that there is a distinct lack of clarity in what the Applicant is seeking to challenge. Without identifying any particular amount of service charge which relates to a particular item, it is difficult for the tribunal to engage its jurisdiction in determining whether the amount is payable and if so, whether it is reasonable.”
“The Applicant has been unsuccessful in his application entirely. He has not even attended the hearing.”
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.