LON/00AT/LSC/2023/0008 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AT/LSC/2023/0008 & others, decided 22 April 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Bellevue Court, 141-149 Staines Road, Hounslow, Middlesex and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Bellevue Court, 141-149 Staines Road, Hounslow, Middlesex
Decision date: 22 April 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £141,835 | £141,835 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | £168,348.38 | £168,348.38 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | £181,449.75 | £181,449.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-2024) | £221,220 | £221,220 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the service charges relating to insurance which form the subject matter of these applications … are payable by the Applicants”
“the service charges relating to insurance which form the subject matter of these applications … are payable by the Applicants”
“the service charges relating to insurance which form the subject matter of these applications … are payable by the Applicants”
“the service charges relating to insurance which form the subject matter of these applications … are payable by the Applicants”
“the Respondent's representative agreed that the Respondent had failed to comply with the settlement agreement referred to above. This, understandably, caused considerable concern to the Applicants and, whilst the Tribunal has no enforcement jurisdiction, it does not reflect well on the Respondent's general credibility.”
“we note that we did not find Mr Sandhu to be a credible witness. It was of particular concern that Mr Sandhu gave evidence that he had, on behalf of the Respondent, charged different lessees different sums ranging from £400 to £4,000 in order to receive a copy of an EWS 1 document which the Respondent had itself obtained entirely free of charge.”
“Mr Sandhu also stated that when lessees failed to pay or queried these charges, he had referred them to a debt collector who working at a health club owned by his father. Mr Sandhu gave evidence that he had described the debt collector as a solicitor when he was not in fact a solicitor 'to add a bit of punchiness'.”
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.