LON/00AW/LBC/2025/0616 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LBC/2025/0616, decided 10 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Ground floor Flat, 62 Redcliffe Square, London SW10 9BN and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ground floor Flat, 62 Redcliffe Square, London SW10 9BN
Decision date: 10 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Praxis Block Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds that the respondent is in breach of clause 4. … the wording defective was wide enough to cover the requirement to have a door which complies with fire regulations”
“there was no allegation that the Applicant had suffered losses or damages because of the actions of the Respondent within the meaning of this clause.”
“the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it, on a balance of probabilities that the hoarding can be attributed to the respondent.”
“There is no follow up information from City Gate insurance which explains the impact that this had on the insurance, or to suggest that the insurance was either voided or that the premium increased.”
“The Tribunal was not provided with any evidence in support of this allegation.”
“the Applicant stated that they were unaware of the hearing. However, they accepted that they had received a copy of the directions which provided notice of the hearing date and the time and venue for the hearing.”
“although it finds that the respondent should reimburse the costs of the application fee. It finds that the hearing fee should not be paid by the respondent.”
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.