LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0271 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0271, decided 27 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 14 Fairmont House, 60 Wellington Way, Wellington Place, Bow, London, E3 4XG and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 14 Fairmont House, 60 Wellington Way, Wellington Place, Bow, London, E3 4XG
Decision date: 27 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: JPW Real Estate.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £900 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £991 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2024) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £288 | £288 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the costs of the leak inspection are not chargeable as an administration charge under either clause 3.3 or 3.5”
“it is conceded by the respondent that those charges have not been properly demanded (and are therefore not payable as administration charges)”
“we find that the £90 late payment fee is not payable”
“this administration charge is payable – payability under the lease per se having not been raised as an issue in relation to this item”
“Those witness statements seemed to us to be quite closely worded to talk only about plumbing issues (whether by design or not) and had not even been written by, or in conjunction with, the witnesses. Instead, Mr Ahmed had asked them to sign them if they were happy with the content.”
“The applicant initially said that video had been taken in September 2023, but when we observed that an email dated 22 July 2022 referred to a video that submission changed, and we were told it was the video referred to in that email. We asked why we had been told that video was taken in September 2023, and were told it was because Mr Ahmed was fasting for Ramadan and had mis-remembered.”
“We find as a fact that the applicant did not allow the respondent reasonable access to carry out their investigations, and draw adverse inferences from that in relation to why the applicant wished to frustrate access for valid and reasonable investigatory purposes to a flat he did not even occupy at the time.”
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.