Decision summary

LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0156 — service charge decision

In LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0156, decided 10 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Various Properties on Kingswood Estate, London SE21 and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Various Properties on Kingswood Estate, London SE21
Decision date: 10 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Major works (2018-19)——ReducedOther grounds
Major works (2018-19)——Allowed in full—
Utilities (2018-19)——ReducedWorks not necessary, Other grounds
Repairs & maintenance (2018-19)——Allowed in full—
Major works (2018-19)——conceded—
Major works (2018-19)——conceded—

Section 20C order: partial.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The tribunal finds the works of replacement of the front entrance doors were not works of improvement but were works to remedy defects in their fire resistance which could only be remedied by the replacement of the original.”
On major works
“The tribunal finds that these works are not works of improvement but are works to remedy defects in the existing structure and fall within Schedule 3 para 7(6) of the lease.”
On major works
“the tribunal also finds the works were excessive in their scope and unreasonable in so far as they included works to install emergency lighting, which necessitated the ripping out of existing cables and installation of new in order to accommodate it.”
On utilities
“The tribunal finds the use of Spartan tiling was not an improvement as submitted by the applicants. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that this was a cost-effective way to ensure maintenance of the relevant balconies.”
On repairs & maintenance
“The tribunal records the respondent's concession it will not recharge any applicant for costs of Cavity Wall Insulation.”
On major works
“The tribunal records the respondent's concession it will not recharge any applicant the cost of these works.”
On major works
“The tribunal does not accept Mr Fox's conclusion in his second report that, 'In my opinion, this entire case has resulted from a disproportionate perception on the part of the Council that failure to comply with current guidance for new buildings equates to undue risk to occupants; in effect, the Council have conflated non-compliance with serious risk, without any proper assessment of the risk from any defects that might exist in individual FEDs.'”
Of (CS Todd & Associates, applicant's fire safety expert)
“The tribunal accepted Mr French's criticism of the limitations of the applicant's expert's approach and CSTA's failure to understand the respondent's concern and consideration of risk”
Of CS Todd & Associates (applicant's fire safety expert)
“On cross-examination Mr Fox conceded that he had not known at the time of making his report a door by door inspection had been carried out on behalf of the respondent although 'he knew this now.' He did not carry out a similarly comprehensive survey himself. The tribunal also noted that his report did not include any photographic evidence to support his case.”
Of (CS Todd & Associates, applicant's fire safety expert)

Related

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.