LON/00AW/LSC/2026/0084 — service charge decision
In LON/00AW/LSC/2026/0084, decided 17 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 4A Meriden Court, 54-64 Chelsea Manor Street, London, SW3 3TT and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 4A Meriden Court, 54-64 Chelsea Manor Street, London, SW3 3TT
Decision date: 17 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Principia Estates & Asset Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2013-2022) | £8,092.03 | £8,092.03 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Reserve fund contributions (2013-2022) | £3,002 | £3,002 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | £3,363.48 | £3,363.48 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-2023) | £2,500 | £2,500 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2022) | £933.70 | £933.70 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal has received no evidence of specific service charges in terms of date demanded, amount, composition or challenges on reasonableness or payability on any service charges prior to March 2022. The tribunal does not disturb the pre-March 2022 service charges.”
“The tribunal does not disturb the pre-March 2022 service charges.”
“The tribunal says, that it is for the party disputing the reasonableness of sums claimed to establish a prima facie case. No such evidence has been submitted. The tribunal does not disturb the pre-March 2022 service charges.”
“The tribunal finds no evidence to suggest that the amount aimed at for the reserve fund £3,000,000 is unreasonable and that it had been inflated for reasons beyond that of the purposes permitted under the lease.”
“There has been no specific challenge to the reasonableness of the balancing charge. Such a charge is the arithmetic produce of the budget and actual service charges. No specific challenges have been made to either of these and so the tribunal leaves the balancing charge undisturbed.”
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.