LON/00BB/LSC/2023/0080 — service charge decision
In LON/00BB/LSC/2023/0080, decided 22 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 28 disputed service charge items at 9 Buxton Road, London, E15 1QU and found largely for the leaseholder: 26 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 9 Buxton Road, London, E15 1QU
Decision date: 22 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022/23) | £11,816.14 | £150 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Major works (2022/23) | £11,576.74 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2022/23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Buildings insurance (2017/18) | £1,870 | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2018/19) | £1,961 | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2019/20) | £2,025.97 | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2020/21) | £2,343.94 | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021/22) | — | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2017/18) | £780 | £600 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2017/18) | £405.60 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Other charges (2018/19) | £612 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Other charges (2019/20) | £816 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £790.44 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £426 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Major works (2021/22) | £2,242 | £2,242 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22) | £6,641.04 | £6,641.04 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017/18) | £853.20 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2018/19) | £856.80 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £864 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £871.20 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £878.40 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2017/18) | £180 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2018/19) | £210 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2019/20) | £228 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020/21) | £246 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021/22) | £300 | £100 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2017/18) | £192 | £80 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £798 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent has charged £11,816.14. The Tribunal allows £150. On 23 April 2023, the management of the Building passed from the Respondent to the Applicant's RTM Company.”
“This work was not done. We accept the evidence of the Applicants that a new Ryefield board was not necessary and that more limited works would have sufficed.”
“The sums were not demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease. We therefore disallow the administration charges.”
“we are satisfied that a premium of £2,294 is excessive. Doing the best that we can, we consider that a reasonable sum for insurance is £1,000 per annum over this five year period”
“we consider that a reasonable sum for insurance is £1,000 per annum over this five year period”
“we consider that a reasonable sum for insurance is £1,000 per annum over this five year period”
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.