LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0717 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0717, decided 22 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 23 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, 29 Hayter Road, London, SW2 5AR and reached a mixed result: 16 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, 29 Hayter Road, London, SW2 5AR
Decision date: 22 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: SE1 Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016) | £3,504.91 | £835.25 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Major works (2017) | £5,038.50 | £3,252 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Dispensation granted conditionally |
| Cleaning (2017) | £158 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2016) | £383 | £191.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2017) | £402 | £201 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2018) | £418 | £209 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2019) | £430 | £215 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2020) | £458 | £229 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2021) | £572 | £240 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2022) | £635 | £240 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2023) | £699 | £160 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2016) | £158 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2021) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2017) | £989.50 | £989.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £1,044.83 | £1,044.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £1,027.17 | £1,027.17 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £870.83 | £870.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £1,095.74 | £1,095.74 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £1,217.03 | £1,217.03 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | £1.31 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Other charges (2021) | £793.36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Staffing & concierge (2019) | £464 | £464 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Whilst the Respondent has provided a budget for this year, there are no invoices. The Respondent has not provided service charge accounts for the year or the 'Accountant's Certificate'. We therefore disallow the excess service charge.”
“The Applicant has conceded that the Respondent's liability for the contracted works is capped at £250 as the Applicant failed to comply with the statutory duty to consult. The Tribunal (in LON/00AY/LDC/2025/0603) granted dispensation for the urgent additional safety works which was executed at a cost of £18,012. The Respondent's 1/6 share would be £3,002. The Respondent's total liability is therefore £3,252.”
“The Respondent has failed to provide any invoices for the years 2016, 2017, 2021, 2022 and 2023.”
“we should reduce the sum sought for management charges by 50%”
“we should reduce the sum sought for management charges by 50%”
“We make a deduction of £104.50 (50% of £209) in respect of the management charge.”
“The Applicant has filed a Bundle of 735 pages to which reference will be made in this decision. This is poorly prepared and difficult to navigate.”
“This case has been extremely badly prepared by both sides.”
“The chaotic manner in which the building had been managed only became too apparent during the course of the hearing.”
“Mr Case had no explanation as to why the Applicant had not served the service charge accounts on the Respondent or why these had not been included in the Bundle.”
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.