LON/00BF/LSC/2025/0989 — service charge decision
In LON/00BF/LSC/2025/0989, decided 16 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 3 & 4 Poets House, 47 Erskine Road, Sutton, SM1 3AT and found largely for the leaseholder: 15 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 3 & 4 Poets House, 47 Erskine Road, Sutton, SM1 3AT
Decision date: 16 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £2,847.13 | £1,500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2022-24) | £1,069.29 | £525 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £234 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £375 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Poor standard of work |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £390 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £1,190 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £468 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £2,640 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £114 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £228 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-24) | £360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £1,578 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £246 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The annual premium of £1,982 charged by the Respondent is not unreasonable. However, it is only entitled to claim it for a period of 9 months. We therefore allow the sum of £1,500.”
“We conclude that £450 per annum would be a reasonable charge for electricity. We allow £525 for the 14 month period between 21 December 2022 and 5 February 2024.”
“Mrs Liberra-Gardyna stated that there was only one visit during this period. An extended mop was used... only one was cleaned. The Tribunal is satisfied that no adequate service was provided.”
“The Property has limited guttering. There are no trees in the immediate locality. PICS had not considered that such a service was required. We agree. This service was not necessary and was unreasonably incurred.”
“Accountant: £120. No audited accounts have been prepared as required by the lease. This is disallowed.”
“Management Fee for December 2022 – March 2023: £375. Eagerstates did not visit the Property. They ignored the correspondence sent by the lessees. The Tribunal is satisfied that no adequate service was provided.”
“The Respondent has taken an informed decision not to seek to justify the sums demanded. The evidential burden on the Applicants is a low one in that (i) the sums have not been demanded in accordance with the terms of the lease; (ii) no audited service charge accounts have been provided; (iii) the Respondent has failed to disclose the invoices requested by the tenants; and (iv) the Respondent has failed to provide the disclosure required by the Directions or to respond to the current application.”
“Eagerstates did not visit the Property. They ignored the correspondence sent by the lessees. The Tribunal is satisfied that no adequate service was provided.”
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.