LON/00AY/LSC/2025/0752 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2025/0752 & others, decided 6 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 42 Montrell Road, London SW2 4QB and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, 42 Montrell Road, London SW2 4QB
Decision date: 6 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works | £1,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works | £1,300 | £300 | Reduced | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works | £2,000 | £1,000 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the cost of £1,000 charged for laying turf, which was not undertaken, is not reasonably incurred and not payable”
“the cost of the metal gate in the sum of £1,300 which was not installed, is not reasonably incurred and not payable but that the sum of £300 is payable for the installation of a wooden door”
“the cost of £2,000 for unspecified electrical works is not reasonably incurred and not payable but the sum of £1,000 is payable for the hallway re-wiring, lighting and fusebox works”
“Mr Kanani accepted that the entryphone had been installed, the issue was that it had not been connected to Flat 2... This point of dispute was withdrawn.”
“The Tribunal finds on the balance of probabilities that AS Builders did not act with the level of professionalism to be expected in the building trade. They used a business address where they were not registered (this was not disputed by the Applicant), their quote stated that "all prices are subject to VAT" when they were not VAT registered, and according to Mr Akintola, they never provided any details of the electrical works to be completed. Furthermore, they did not complete all the works set out on the quote.”
“The Tribunal finds that it was not reasonable for Mr Akintola to change the scope of the Section 20 works unilaterally, without consultation with the leaseholders.”
“The Applicant belatedly accepted that it failed to consult with the Respondent in respect of the Section 20 works carried out at the Property. It now admits that it sent the consultation documents to the Property when Ms Kanani had requested that all documents be sent to her correspondence address. This resulted in Ms Kanani being unable to comment on the quotes provided.”
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.