LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0460/0461 AND 0462 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2023/0460/0461 AND 0462, decided 21 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flats 123, 142, 177, 178 and 179 Basin Approach, London E14 and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 123, 142, 177, 178 and 179 Basin Approach, London E14
Decision date: 21 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Haus Management (formerly BMAS).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £38,000 | £20,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £13,500 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £474 | £474 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal determines that the express terms of the leases for Buildings C and D require that excess sums paid are to be re-credited to the respective leaseholders.”
“The front entrance doors to the flats are demised to the applicants who are not liable to pay a service charge for an annual safety check.”
“The tribunal finds it reasonable for the respondent to incur an annual cost from a specialist for checks to the communal doors.”
“The tribunal finds the respondent's historic and current allocation of these charges to be reasonable in the absence of individual meters for the Buildings and the Estate.”
“The tribunal finds the allocation of the costs of cleaning are reasonable and payable by the applicants.”
“The parties subsequently agreed that an estimate figure of £20,000 for this item was reasonable.”
“the tribunal finds the costs of £13,500 to do so is completely exaggerate and unreasonable having regard to the limited amount of work that is required.”
“The tribunal was unclear how the applicants had reached their conclusion on how long the cleaner spent in any one Building or over what period the average of 4-6 hours covered.”
“The tribunal finds the applicants objection to this item of work to be unclear and unsubstantiated.”
“The tribunal is unclear how the applicants reach their conclusions on the excess sum that has been collected in respect of these costs.”
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.