LON/00BF/LSC/2025/1108 — service charge decision
In LON/00BF/LSC/2025/1108, decided 11 August 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Orford Court, Belmont Road, Wallington SM6 8TF and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Orford Court, Belmont Road, Wallington SM6 8TF
Decision date: 11 August 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Highdorn Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2019-20) | £20,640 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2019-20) | £61,030 | £61,030 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-20) | £6,679 | £3,339.50 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £2,441 | £1,830.75 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The respondent conceded and the tribunal accepts, that the cost of the replacement flat entrance doors was unreasonably incurred, due to their lack of compliance with the fire safety standards as of 2019.”
“the remainder of the total costs of the 2019 major works in the sum of £61,030 (inclusive of VAT but exclusive of professional fees) is attributable to other works, which were carried out at the same time”
“the main and most substantive reason for the engagement of the surveyor's services was in respect of door replacement works and that the lack of conformity with fire resistance standards, should have been identified by the surveyor”
“the managing agent should have been actively involved in the collection and retention of fire compliance certificates and failed to do so”
“The tribunal is particularly concerned by the applicant's request that it order the respondent to carry out a further replacement of the flat front doors, despite the obligation falling to the individual leaseholders (as these doors form part of their demise) and the applicant's acquisition of the 'right to manage' in or about May 2023 (were the leaseholders willing to provide consent to the applicant carrying out such works on their behalf).”
“the tribunal finds the applicant has sought remedies from the tribunal it has no jurisdiction to make and has unreasonably refused or failed to reasonably negotiate with the respondent after open offers of settlement were made.”
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.