LON/00BD/LSC/2023/0094 — service charge decision
In LON/00BD/LSC/2023/0094, decided 20 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 37 Marina Place, Hampton Wick, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 4BH and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 37 Marina Place, Hampton Wick, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 4BH
Decision date: 20 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017-18 to 2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent should recalculate the charge made to the Applicants on the basis of 75 car parking spaces rather than 66 for each year in issue (from 2017/18 to 2024/25) and credit the difference to the Applicants.”
“The Tribunal concludes that it is more likely than not that the service charge demands for 2022/23 and 2024/25 were served on the Applicants.”
“The Tribunal concludes that it is more likely than not that the service charge demands for 2022/23 and 2024/25 were served on the Applicants.”
“The balustrade and railings form a single structure that must have been intended to be reserved to the Landlord … The service charge referable to the repainting/varnishing of the balconies is payable under the lease.”
“There was no section 20 consultation or service charge in relation to Sky satellite services.”
“The lift repairs were properly undertaken.”
“No substantive reason for postponement was given. Rather, the Applicants make a series of misconceived and absurd allegations about previous determinations by judges and a legal officer, none of which could possibly justify yet another postponement.”
“This is a surprising misinterpretation, as it was clearly the application to postpone that Judge Carr was so characterising (accurately), not the substantive application.”
“There is nothing whatsoever in Ms Gair's determination that could possibly be called biased or prejudiced, or as defaming their character. That they made these accusations is to be regretted.”
“The narrative in the statements consists largely of material accusing the Respondent of various wrongs not related to the service charge, including dishonesty, organising the theft of property, harassment and bullying.”
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.