LON/00AY/LSC/2025/1169 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00AY/LSC/2025/1169 & others, decided 22 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, 47 Clapham Common Northside, London SW4 0AA and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, 47 Clapham Common Northside, London SW4 0AA
Decision date: 22 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Willmotts.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2025) | £4,911.30 | £4,911.30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2025) | £480 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £6,712.40 | £3,356.20 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal therefore finds that the 2025 service is reasonable and payable by the Respondents in full.”
“the Tribunal accepts the submission that the lift was part of the 'Common Parts' as defined in the 1984 Lease (and adopted in the 2014 Lease) and that the Applicant, as landlord, is accordingly obliged to maintain it”
“The use of a partner at £420 per hour throughout was not reasonable and much of the work could and should have been done by more junior staff, albeit under supervision. The total costs incurred came to £6,712.40, which compared unfavourably with the amount in dispute, £6,191.43. The administration charge for legal costs is not reasonable and accordingly the costs are reduced by 50%”
“The only costs information provided to the Tribunal was one invoice of Taylor Rose with a short summary of the costs which did not state the level of fee earner, the hourly rate applied or broke down the work undertaken.”
“The use of a partner at £420 per hour throughout was not reasonable and much of the work could and should have been done by more junior staff, albeit under supervision. The total costs incurred came to £6,712.40, which compared unfavourably with the amount in dispute, £6,191.43.”
“The Tribunal's comments were largely ignored by the Respondents whose arguments centred on the fact they believed the freehold title of the Building (and associated property) was stolen from them, documents were forged and various allegations of criminal behaviour.”
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.