LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0738 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2024/0738, decided 12 August 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 6, 7 & 12 Kenbury Mansions, Kenbury Street, London SE5 9BU and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 6, 7 & 12 Kenbury Mansions, Kenbury Street, London SE5 9BU
Decision date: 12 August 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2019-2023) | £64,266.70 | £57,940 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2019-2023) | £126,604.32 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019-2023) | £22,398.48 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-2023) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the amount that is being claimed for scaffolding should be reduced from £64,266.70 to a rounded figure of £57,940. This is on the basis that we prefer the evidence relating thereto and accept the measurements put forward by the Council. This is a reduction of £6,327 (rounded).”
“we are not satisfied that the Respondents have acted unreasonably in dealing with the works on the basis that they have... Without any evidence from the Applicants as to what the costs might otherwise have been, we take the view that the amount claimed by the Council is reasonable and is payable.”
“we are left to conclude that the works were within the scope of what was reasonable and that they required to be undertaken... these are reasonably incurred costs and there is no challenge to the quantum by reference to alternative quotations.”
“This cost is not challenged other than to say it is duplicated which we do not agree is the case.”
“We have concluded that there is merit in the Applicant's argument that the management fee should be reduced to a reasonable amount. Such reasonable amount we find to be 5%”
“We are particularly concerned at the way in which the Council has dealt with the accounting exercises in this particular case. The Applicants in their skeleton argument speak to the number of times that accounts were produced and the length of time it took to prepare a final detailed breakdown and final figures to the Applicants. The figures are difficult to understand as was accepted by Mr Byfield. Within the final account at page 751 it appears that some items have been lumped together, and it is not possible to tell what is actually included. This does not help a tenant in trying to understand the costs that they being asked to pay. This is the more so as of course the amounts being sought from each individual tenant are high.”
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.