LON/00AW/LSC/2025/0813 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2025/0813, decided 24 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 103 Earls Court Road, London W8 6QH and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 103 Earls Court Road, London W8 6QH
Decision date: 24 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Congreve Horner.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22-2024/25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021/22-2024/25) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2021/22-2024/25) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Management fees (2021/22-2024/25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021/22-2024/25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021/22-2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2022/23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023/24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024/25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“On the basis of the evidence provided by the Applicants and in the absence of any proper analysis on the part of the Respondents these charges are reasonable and payable in full.”
“During the course of the hearing the Respondents said that they were no longer disputing (a) the cleaning charges”
“During the course of the hearing the Respondents said that they were no longer disputing … (b) the pest control charges.”
“we are satisfied that the managing agent's fees for the years of dispute are reasonable and payable in full.”
“On the basis of the evidence provided by the Applicants and in the absence of any proper analysis on the part of the Respondents these charges are reasonable and payable in full.”
“the service charge provisions summarised above are not wide enough to entitle the Applicants to recover bank charges from leaseholders through the service charge.”
“The Respondents' complaint that the charges have been unreasonably increased due to water ingress issues is – to put it mildly – not properly evidenced. Whilst it is clear that they have a concern about water ingress, they have completely failed to make their case.”
“As regards the Respondents' benchmarking evidence, it does not hold up to even basic scrutiny as – in the absence of further details – it is effectively meaningless. It should not be necessary to point out that the Applicants and the tribunal cannot reasonably be expected to do the Respondents' research for them by trying to investigate where the various figures have come from (assuming that is even possible), what they cover and how they relate to the specific invoices or charges that the Respondents believe to be unreasonable.”
“The Respondents' benchmarking comments are meaningless in the context of specific sets of major works in that – in the absence of proper quotes based on the actual scope of works for this Property – they cannot possibly amount to evidence that the cost of those works was unreasonable in amount.”
“Set-off is a complicated legal doctrine of limited application and the Respondents have failed to make a case. In particular they have not demonstrated their alleged loss, let alone quantified it, and nor have they demonstrated that the circumstances of any such alleged loss are such that it should be set off against their service charge payments.”
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.