LON/00BD/LSC/2025/0677 — service charge decision
In LON/00BD/LSC/2025/0677, decided 29 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 10B Red Lion Street, Richmond, Surrey and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 10B Red Lion Street, Richmond, Surrey
Decision date: 29 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Sweetings Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019-2020) | £7,602.85 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2021) | £8,115.18 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | £8,926.70 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | £10,374.79 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-2024) | £11,649.64 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024-2025) | £17,973.36 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2025-2026) | £19,086.25 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Based on the evidence put before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has established that the insurance rent is unreasonable to any degree. It is therefore payable for each of the years challenged.”
“Based on the evidence put before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has established that the insurance rent is unreasonable to any degree. It is therefore payable for each of the years challenged.”
“Based on the evidence put before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has established that the insurance rent is unreasonable to any degree. It is therefore payable for each of the years challenged.”
“Based on the evidence put before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has established that the insurance rent is unreasonable to any degree. It is therefore payable for each of the years challenged.”
“Based on the evidence put before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has established that the insurance rent is unreasonable to any degree. It is therefore payable for each of the years challenged.”
“Based on the evidence put before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has established that the insurance rent is unreasonable to any degree. It is therefore payable for each of the years challenged.”
“The biggest problem with the Applicant's case was that, despite being directed to do so in the Tribunal's directions, he had not sought or provided any alternative quotes.”
“He sought to rely on a report from Insurety Ltd but it consisted entirely of opinion and no permission had been sought or obtained to rely on expert evidence. Even if permission had been sought, it would have been refused because the report did not comply with the requirements for expert evidence under rule 19 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013.”
“It is the Applicant's objection to this increase which is unexplained and unevidenced.”
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.