LON/00AS/LSC/2025/0859 — service charge decision
In LON/00AS/LSC/2025/0859, decided 21 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Movia Apartments, 3 Bakers Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Movia Apartments, 3 Bakers Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex
Decision date: 21 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pinnacle Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019-2020) | — | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | — | £320 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023-2024) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2024-2025) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2025-2026) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2025-2026) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal will apply the 4% adjustment for all years.”
“For 2022/23 the insurers were the same... the Tribunal therefore finds that a reasonable premium for the year is £320 per shared ownership flat.”
“The Tribunal finds that most of these elements of cover fall within the insurance clause... except for personal accident, employers' liability, libel/slander, legal expenses and computer cover of £0.0014m. This requires a downward adjustment in premium of about 4%. The tribunal therefore finds that a reasonable premium for the year is £320 per shared ownership flat.”
“In following years, there is no information as to how the premium charged to shared ownership lessees has been derived from the global premium for the block policy. The Tribunal will therefore apply the amount calculated for the year 2022/2023.”
“In following years, there is no information as to how the premium charged to shared ownership lessees has been derived from the global premium for the block policy. The Tribunal will therefore apply the amount calculated for the year 2022/2023.”
“In following years, there is no information as to how the premium charged to shared ownership lessees has been derived from the global premium for the block policy. The Tribunal will therefore apply the amount calculated for the year 2022/2023.”
“Neither party has assisted the Tribunal in dealing with this case. The applicants' case conflated service charge disputes with a challenge to the accounts. The application form incorrectly stated estimated amounts as being in dispute when the applicant was aware that the respondent had served certificates under clause 7.5 of the lease, in respect of years ending 2020,2021,2022,2023 and 2024, and that therefore those were the amounts in contention. The applicants failed to produce any witness statements.”
“The Respondent has failed to produce evidence as to the basis of the sinking fund for the year 2025/26 where there was direct challenge as to the amount. It has failed to provide any evidence as to the apportioned insurance block policy for years 2023 onward. The Respondents have not produced a service charge certificate for the year ending 2025.”
“The evidence supplied by the respondent was unsatisfactory. No breakdown per unit in the building of the global block policy premium was supplied, except for the years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 from the Evelyn accounts.”
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.