Decision summary

LON/00BF/LSC/2024/0825 — service charge decision

In LON/00BF/LSC/2024/0825, decided 6 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 1 Angel Hill Court, Angel Hill, Sutton, Surrey, SM1 3EE and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 1 Angel Hill Court, Angel Hill, Sutton, Surrey, SM1 3EE
Decision date: 6 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: HMF Property Co Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Repairs & maintenance (2021)——Allowed in full—
Management fees (2021)——Allowed in full—
Repairs & maintenance (2022)——Allowed in full—
Management fees (2022)——Allowed in full—
Repairs & maintenance (2023)——Allowed in full—
Management fees (2023)——Allowed in full—
Repairs & maintenance (2024)——Allowed in full—
Management fees (2024)——Allowed in full—
Other charges (2024)——Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost

Key passages (verbatim)

“the Tribunal finds as a fact that the Applicant did 'incur' the relevant costs of maintenance and repairs as shown in the service charge reconciliation statements”
On repairs & maintenance
“The Respondent has not produced evidence from other managing agents to suggest HNF's fees are excessive and there is therefore nothing to suggest these costs were not reasonably incurred under s.19(1)(a) LTA 1985.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal finds as a fact that the Applicant did 'incur' the relevant costs of maintenance and repairs as shown in the service charge reconciliation statements”
On repairs & maintenance
“The Respondent has not produced evidence from other managing agents to suggest HNF's fees are excessive”
On management fees
“the Tribunal finds as a fact that the Applicant did 'incur' the relevant costs of maintenance and repairs as shown in the service charge reconciliation statements”
On repairs & maintenance
“The Respondent has not produced evidence from other managing agents to suggest HNF's fees are excessive”
On management fees
“the Applicant and its advisers should be aware of the obvious risks where service charges are apparently not being demanded in accordance with the regime laid down by the flat leases. There is obvious scope for disputes with leaseholders in future proceedings.”
Of Applicant / managing agents — service charge regime not matching lease terms
“Regrettably, I realise I therefore had no jurisdiction to sit as a judge of the County Court after the Tribunal proceedings concluded. The County Court at Croydon had not previously ordered flexible deployment.”
Of Tribunal Judge (self-criticism) — purporting to sit as County Court judge without jurisdiction
“In my view, the County Court orders for payment and orders for costs and interest which I made orally are therefore a nullity and of no effect.”
Of Tribunal Judge (self-criticism) — consequential orders declared nullity

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.