LON/00AS/LSC/2025/0614 — service charge decision
In LON/00AS/LSC/2025/0614, decided 30 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Union Park, Packet Boat Lane, West Drayton, Uxbridge and reached a mixed result: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Union Park, Packet Boat Lane, West Drayton, Uxbridge
Decision date: 30 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ringley Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £151,493.16 | £151,493.16 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £38,120.22 | £24,488 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £24,718.40 | £17,017 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £204,024.31 | £123,097 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £12,001.23 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £36,000 | £9,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £4,414 | £2,207 | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £9,959.66 | £4,979.83 | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £39,860.88 | £19,493.16 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The First Respondent has no liability to repair, maintain or replace the communal heating and hot water system.”
“The premium of £151,493.16 charged by Axa for the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 is reasonable and payable. This is an average annual premium of £604 per flat.”
“The premium of £38,120.22 charged for the period 1 February 2024 to 31 March 2024 (59 days) is unreasonable. The Tribunal allows £24,488 for this 59 day period which is an average annual rate of £604 per flat.”
“The premium of £24,718.40 for the period 22 December 2023 to 31 January 2024 (41 days) is unreasonable. The Tribunal allows £17,017 which is an average annual rate of £604 per flat.”
“The premium of £204,024.31 charged for the period 22 December 2022 to 21 December 2023 is unreasonable. The Tribunal allows the sum of £123,097.”
“Insurance premium finance charge of £12,001.23. No evidence has been provided relating to this charge and it is disallowed.”
“The Tribunal does not accept that the First Respondent needed to take out a new policy of insurance. The insurance had been arranged by Towergate, a reputable firm of brokers. This was a new development. The policy would have been indexed linked. The insurer would have been aware of the claim's history. It would have been open to the First Respondent to have substituted itself as landlord on the existing policy.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the 200% increase in the premium reflected a number of extraneous factors. Mr Gubbay was anxious to complete the purchase ten separate purchases by Christmas which formed part of his property portfolio. Rothchilds, his bankers, were insisting on BDVs being increased by 50% in the absence of recent RCA Reports.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the First Respondent should have allowed the existing policy arranged by Towergate to remain in place until 31 March 2023. The demands of Mr Gubbay's bankers was the primary factor as to why this did not occur.”
“The Tribunal was not given any explanation was to why this was not done until 1 April 2024. We note that this resulted in a 36% reduction on the policy that was then in place.”
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.