LON/00BB/LBC/2025/0694 — service charge decision
In LON/00BB/LBC/2025/0694, decided 1 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flats 108 and 174 Barrier Point Road, London E16 2SD and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 108 and 174 Barrier Point Road, London E16 2SD
Decision date: 1 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Uratemp Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent breached both leases by subletting both without the consent of the lessor and/or the Applicant in breach of Paragraph 26.1 of Part One of the Eighth Schedule to both leases.”
“we are satisfied that the Respondent used Flat 174 other than as a private residence occupied by a single household in breach of Paragraph 1 of Part Two of the Eighth Schedule to that lease.”
“we are satisfied that the Respondent failed to grant access to both flats on 13th November 2025 following a written request sent to the Respondent on 7th November 2025.”
“We are not satisfied that the Respondent has carried out any unauthorised alterations to either flat as there is no evidence before the tribunal that any such works were undertaken.”
“We are not satisfied that the remainder of the allegations relating to nuisance and insurance have been proven as there is no evidence to substantiate them.”
“We considered that we would not debar the Respondent as it had effectively debarred itself by failing to file any evidence in opposition to the application.”
“The Applicant acknowledged that both parties had failed to comply with the tribunal's directions but submitted that this was done with a view to saving costs.”
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.