LON/00BE/LSC/2025/0956 — service charge decision
In LON/00BE/LSC/2025/0956, decided 27 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 11 Austral Street, London SE11 4SJ and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 11 Austral Street, London SE11 4SJ
Decision date: 27 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £4,248 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2022-2023) | £2,112.49 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £3,411.25 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The absence of any evidence to counter the claim led the Tribunal to accept the Applicants' case and the Respondent is to repay £4,248.00.”
“The Tribunal accepted that the electricity for the common parts had not been paid by the Respondent and that £2,112.49 should be re-paid to the Applicants.”
“The best the Tribunal could do was divide the estimated service charges of £10,233.74 by three to account for the 4 months when the Applicants had enfranchised. This was £3,411.25”
“The Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that no services were provided prior to the enfranchisement.”
“The Respondent is an experienced litigator, a frequent user of the Tribunal and there is little doubt that their actions and or inactions have been deliberate and calculated.”
“The Respondent has made no effort to provide any reconciliation at the end of their tenure. They are therefore at risk of becoming unduly enriched at the cost of the Applicants”
“It is easy to see why such an application was considered a potential abuse of process as there was clearly a reconciliation process that needed to be undertaken.”
“A professional, legally qualified Respondent who chooses to not engage, for whatever tactical reason, is by its nature preventing the Tribunal from being able to further the overriding objective.”
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.