LON/00AU/LSC/2025/0857 — service charge decision
In LON/00AU/LSC/2025/0857, decided 10 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Quartz House, 4 Stirling Way, London, N7 9HU and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Quartz House, 4 Stirling Way, London, N7 9HU
Decision date: 10 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall and Rittner.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2025-26) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The parties agreed the charges shown on the revised schedule and that it should be attached to the tribunal's decision to avoid any misunderstanding.”
“The parties agreed the charges shown on the revised schedule and that it should be attached to the tribunal's decision to avoid any misunderstanding.”
“The parties agreed the charges shown on the revised schedule and that it should be attached to the tribunal's decision to avoid any misunderstanding.”
“The Building Safety Act costs were properly incurred and chargeable to the service charge account.”
“The Building Safety Act costs were properly incurred and chargeable to the service charge account.”
“The management fee charged by Peabody should be reduced to £50 per annum per flat for each of the tears in question.”
“The recalculated costs charged by Peabody were opaque and difficult to comprehend because Peabody provided scant information to the leaseholders.”
“An arbitrary uplift for inflation was not adopted by Rendall and Rittner although an element of such an approach seems to have been part of Peabody's calculations.”
“Peabody, for its own purposes chose not to send the invoices received from Rendall and Rittner to the Applicants in accordance with the terms of the lease but to estimate the charges applicable in its own financial year. This work was solely for the benefit of Peabody.”
“the Tribunal accepts that Peabody fell far short in providing a reasonable amount of information to the Applicants. It had the background information but did not pass it on as a matter of course or in response to queries made.”
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.