LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0098 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0098, decided 20 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 35 disputed service charge items at 203 Cudweed Court, 2 Watergate Walk, London E14 9XH and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 203 Cudweed Court, 2 Watergate Walk, London E14 9XH
Decision date: 20 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Anglo Fortune Estate Management Limited (from 1 Oct 2021); London Residential Management Limited (LRM) prior to 1 Oct 2021.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2019) | £34,315 | £34,315 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020) | £11,162 | £11,162 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | £25,574 | £25,574 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2019) | £11,298 | £11,298 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2020) | £9,574 | £9,574 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020) | £42,477 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Utilities (2021) | £25,472 | £25,472 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | £67,459 | £67,459 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £11,274 | £11,274 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £11,060 | £11,060 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £17,102 | £17,102 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £7,267 | £7,267 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £8,945 | £8,945 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £7,761 | £7,761 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £3,367 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £20,283 | £20,283 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £5,500 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £3,844 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £3,960 | £3,960 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £204 | £204 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £11,509 | £11,509 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020) | £16,356 | £16,356 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020) | £54,933 | £54,933 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £126 | £126 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £236 | £236 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £2,167 | £2,167 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £3,557 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £3,617 | £3,617 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £400 | £400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,744 | £2,744 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,382 | £2,382 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | £8,363 | £8,363 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £2,902 | £2,902 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £955 | £955 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicants have not established a prima facie case that the costs have been unreasonable. We are satisfied that the sums disputed are reasonable.”
“The Applicants have not established a prima facie case that the costs have been unreasonable. We are satisfied that the sums disputed are reasonable.”
“The Applicants have not established a prima facie case that the costs have been unreasonable. We are satisfied that the sums disputed are reasonable.”
“The Applicants have not established a prima facie case that the costs incurred in 2019 and 2020 were unreasonable. Neither is there evidence of any lift breakdowns during these years. We are satisfied that the sums disputed are reasonable.”
“The Applicants have not established a prima facie case that the costs incurred in 2019 and 2020 were unreasonable. Neither is there evidence of any lift breakdowns during these years. We are satisfied that the sums disputed are reasonable.”
“The Second Respondent concede that the Respondents should not have been required to contribute to the electricity costs relating to the gym. It is agreed that the Applicants are entitled to refunds in respect of this.”
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.