LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0207 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0207, decided 25 March 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 1 Mission Court, 1a Crystal Palace Road, London SE22 9EX and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1 Mission Court, 1a Crystal Palace Road, London SE22 9EX
Decision date: 25 March 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Peabody Trust.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening & grounds (2019-2025) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2019-2025) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2019-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2025) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2019-2025) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal is not satisfied that the standard of the work has been adequate in the years under challenge. The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that his charges for grounds maintenance to date should be reduced to £2 per week or £104 per year.”
“the Tribunal is not satisfied as to the standard of the cleaning for the years in dispute. Again, the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that his charges for cleaning to date should be reduced to £3 per week or £156 per year.”
“the Tribunal is not satisfied that the element of the service charge relating to electricity is unreasonable. The amount claimed by the Respondent is, therefore, payable.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence justifies the amounts charged. In order to ensure that the Applicant is not being overcharged...the Tribunal determines that a reasonable figure for water would be 25% less than the amount charged to the Applicant.”
“the Respondent's management of the Applicant's service charges has been seriously deficient in the ways described in paragraphs 7-9 above...the Tribunal has determined that the Respondent's administration/management fee for the years in dispute should be reduced by a further 50%.”
“The Respondent had been directed to produce the bundle by 28th February 2025. They did send on that date what purported to be the bundle but, in breach of the directions, it was in multiple parts.”
“There are plenty of file transfer services which do not have such problems but Ms Chatfield could not explain why they were not used.”
“The Respondent has failed in this fundamental obligation and subjected the Applicant to legally unjustified charges for many years.”
“the Respondent no longer had a copy of the Applicant's tenancy agreement.”
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.