LON/00AU/LSC/2024/0306 — service charge decision
In LON/00AU/LSC/2024/0306, decided 27 January 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 64 Blackstock Road, London, N4 2DW and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 64 Blackstock Road, London, N4 2DW
Decision date: 27 January 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | £1,624.24 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Section 20B 18-month time limit, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023-2024) | £1,534.03 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2024-2025) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2022-2023) | £1,197 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the sum demanded for building insurance covering the period June 2022 to June 2023 was served 2 years after the cost was incurred and is not recoverable by virtue of s20B of the 1985 Act.”
“the obligation to insure 64 Blackstock Road, and the correlated right to demand payment from the leaseholders, has passed to the RTM company.”
“The Tribunal determines that no service charge in respect of the cost of building insurance is payable by the Applicants to the Respondent for the year 2024-2025.”
“In this case there were no arrears of service charge and thus no obligation to pay the landlord's cost of seeking payment. Consequently those costs are not payable by the Applicants.”
“They did not engage with any of the points raised by Ms McKenna, but attached two letters headed 'Insurance Renewal Notice' which were dated 14 June 2022 and 27 June 2023 respectively.”
“Again, they did not engage in any substantive way with the points raised by Ms Mckenna in her email dated 10 June 2024.”
“the relevant policies were not disclosed by the Respondent in accordance with the tribunal's directions and are not in the agreed bundle.”
“There was no personal attendance by anyone on behalf of either the freeholder or its managing agent Eagerstates Ltd.”
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.