LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0514 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0514, decided 25 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 and 3, 61 Thurlestone Road, London SE27 0PE and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 and 3, 61 Thurlestone Road, London SE27 0PE
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2018) | £455 | £455 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018) | £1,829 | £900 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | £1,290 | £1,290 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Major works (2018) | £8,340 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the cleaning of the common parts was carried out by a firm known as Asset Commercial who cleaned the ground floor hallway, staircase, cellar and carpets. This was supported by the relevant invoices [234-240]. No further challenge was made by the Respondent.”
“he limited the claim to £900 for this expenditure on the basis that this was the sum the Tribunal found to be reasonable in an earlier decision in 2015 between the parties. He withdrew the additional sums of £269, £135 and £375 demanded because he was unable to locate the relevant invoices.”
“the Applicant limited the sum claimed for this expenditure to £750 including VAT to avoid the need to carry out statutory consultation under section 20 of the Act. No further challenge was made by the Respondent to the overall reduced amount for these invoices.”
“The Applicant did not understand why this challenge was brought by the Respondent because he said that no demand had in fact been made for the cost of any major works to the cellar.”
“The Tribunal raised the issue of the Respondent's complete failure to file and serve any evidence pursuant to the Tribunal's directions dated 14 January 2025 and amended on 20 January 2025.”
“No good reason was offered by Mr Osborne on behalf of the Respondent. It was for this reason his application to adjourn the hearing was refused and the hearing proceeded on the basis that the only evidence before the Tribunal was the Applicant's.”
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.