LON/00AW/LSC/2024/0263 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2024/0263, decided 18 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, 4 Campden Hill Gardens, London and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, 4 Campden Hill Gardens, London
Decision date: 18 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2017) | £11,476.88 | £11,476.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017) | £177.23 | £177.23 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2017) | £48 | £48 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2017) | £48 | £48 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017) | £1,200 | £1,200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017) | £3,602.46 | £3,602.46 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016-17) | £580.10 | £580.10 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the sums claimed by the Applicant are due in their entirety”
“the sums claimed by the Applicant are due in their entirety”
“the sums claimed by the Applicant are due in their entirety”
“the sums claimed by the Applicant are due in their entirety”
“the sums claimed by the Applicant are due in their entirety”
“the sums claimed by the Applicant are due in their entirety”
“The Respondent's defence was only really made clear in a skeleton argument filed before the hearing.”
“No real detail was provided in the defence.”
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.