LON/00AW/LSC/2025/0646 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2025/0646, decided 17 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 6, 12 Vicarage Gate, London, W8 4AG and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6, 12 Vicarage Gate, London, W8 4AG
Decision date: 17 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hillgate Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lifts (2019) | £10,398 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | £266.48 | £266.48 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2020) | £455.62 | £455.62 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2021) | £474.60 | £474.60 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2022) | £488.16 | £488.16 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £59.84 | £59.84 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £187 | £187 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019-2023) | £12,979.34 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondents do not seek to challenge the reasonableness of the cost of the lift works undertaken in 2019, and in principle accept that the cost is recoverable from them as a service charge.”
“The sums which were charged were, based on our professional experience as an expert tribunal, within a reasonable range of fees for a building of this nature and in this location and we consider that they were reasonable.”
“We are not satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated that the standard of service provided by the managing agent was sufficiently poor to warrant a reduction in the fee recoverable.”
“We are not satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated that the standard of service provided by the managing agent was sufficiently poor to warrant a reduction in the fee recoverable.”
“We are not satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated that the standard of service provided by the managing agent was sufficiently poor to warrant a reduction in the fee recoverable.”
“He does not deny that the costs were reasonably incurred, reasonable in amount or due under the lease and has supplied no other reason why they should be reduced or disallowed. We dismiss his challenge to this item.”
“We struggled to identify the specific aspects of the managing agent's service which the Respondents maintained were not to a reasonable standard.”
“In this case we have not been provided with any information regarding what the anticipated costs might have been or how the Respondent's contributions were calculated.”
“We are not in a position to calculate the exact reduction based on the information available to us.”
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.