LON/00BE/LSC/2025/0850 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2025/0850, decided 2 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 5 Brownlow House, 31 Wade House, 28 Bardell House, 3 Chalfont House, Dickens Estate and St Crispin's Estate, London Borough of Southwark and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 5 Brownlow House, 31 Wade House, 28 Bardell House, 3 Chalfont House, Dickens Estate and St Crispin's Estate, London Borough of Southwark
Decision date: 2 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | — | — | conceded | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2017-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Administration charges (2017-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Administration charges (2017-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“this charge falls within paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the lease and is recoverable.”
“the Respondent was entitled to treat the cost of lighting attached to the exterior of any block or building on the St Crispin Estate or Dickens Estate as an estate cost as it is for the benefit of all persons using the exterior common parts”
“the Respondent has conceded that 12 works orders relating to lighting repairs were incorrectly charged to the leaseholders of Dickens Estate as estate costs and not block costs, and has undertaken to issue a credit”
“Mr Kokkinos has not raised a primae facie case that the figures used to calculate the base costs were incorrectly calculated. He has not sought to argue that the total charges for the years in dispute were unreasonable.”
“none of Ms Marsh's challenges raise a primae facie case that the works were unreasonably incurred or inappropriately charged.”
“the Applicant has not raised a primae facie case that the figures used to calculate the administration charge were incorrectly calculated or that the costs were not reasonable given the level of service provided. We dismiss this challenge.”
“Mr Kokkinos insisted that he was not challenging the decision of the Upper Tribunal but it is clear from the Applicant's Scott schedule that he is.”
“any attempt by a litigant to seek redetermination in respect of any matter that had been previously determined by the tribunal is an abuse of process”
“She told us that she wished to challenge everything until she was satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent.”
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.