LON/00AY/LSC/2025/0718 — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2025/0718, decided 17 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Helston House, 93 Kennington Lane, London SE11 4HQ and reached a mixed result: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Helston House, 93 Kennington Lane, London SE11 4HQ
Decision date: 17 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2024) | — | £497.85 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Management fees (2024) | — | £1,104.60 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2024) | — | £700 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2024) | — | £375 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2024) | — | £240 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal accepts the applicants' submissions that the insurance should be pro-rated after having acquired the right to manage with effect from 23 July 2024... determines that £497.85 is payable by the applicants.”
“The tribunal finds the demanded for this sum by the respondent is unreasonable as the survey was carried out on 30 July 2024 and after the applicants acquired the right to manage the subject property.”
“The tribunal determines the applicants are not required to pay for this item of service charge as it was not reasonably incurred for reasons given at paragraph 10 above.”
“The tribunal determines that the applicants are not required to pay for management fees post 23 July 2024 as the respondent was no longer required to provide management of the subject building.”
“The tribunal finds the sum demanded by the respondent for this item has not been reasonably incurred. The tribunal finds there is no requirement on the part to the respondent to have incurred this expense or that it was, in any event carried out by a properly qualified contractor.”
“The tribunal accepts the applicants' oral, documentary and photographic evidence and finds this work was not carried out as alleged by the respondent or at all.”
“the respondent failed to comply with the tribunal's directions to record its comments in the Scott Schedule in which the applicants set out each item they challenged and their reasons for that challenge.”
“The tribunal finds the respondent has shown no justification for continuing to incur this charge.”
“The tribunal accepts the applicants' evidence that the respondent failed to properly or meaningfully respond to s.93 of the 1993 Act notices served by the applicants.”
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.