LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0052 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0052, decided 7 January 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 2 & 6 Onega Gate, Russia Court East, Finland Street, London SE16 7PF and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 2 & 6 Onega Gate, Russia Court East, Finland Street, London SE16 7PF
Decision date: 7 January 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Property Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2015-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2015-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2015-2024) | — | — | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2015-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2015-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the applicant, has on the balance of probabilities been provided with services under the terms of his leases and for which payment has been demanded.”
“the applicant, has on the balance of probabilities been provided with services under the terms of his leases and for which payment has been demanded.”
“the respondent conceded at the beginning of the hearing that the costs of communal cleaning to the subject properties at 2 and 6 Onega Gate should be removed as neither had any communal area for which cleaning was provided.”
“the applicant, has on the balance of probabilities been provided with services under the terms of his leases and for which payment has been demanded.”
“the applicant, has on the balance of probabilities been provided with services under the terms of his leases and for which payment has been demanded.”
“the applicant, has on the balance of probabilities been provided with services under the terms of his leases and for which payment has been demanded.”
“The tribunal found the applicant's bald assertion that no services at all have been provided by the respondent over the 9 years in dispute, to be wholly unconvincing.”
“The tribunal finds the applicant's evidence on all of the disputed heads of service charge to be vague, non-specific and unsupported by the production of any or any persuasive documentary evidence.”
“The tribunal also did not accept the applicant's assertion that the property manager was unresponsive to his complaints as this was undermined by his stated wish to hire the same property manager for the management of his own businesses and the estate inspection reports of this property manager.”
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.