LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0655 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2024/0655, decided 9 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 138 Teesdale Street, London E2 6PU and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 138 Teesdale Street, London E2 6PU
Decision date: 9 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal finds the first applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case in respect of his challenge to the reasonableness of the amount of charges for building insurance. The tribunal finds the first applicant failed to provide reasons for or any comparable evidence to show that the buildings insurance was too high.”
“the tribunal finds both the management fee and the audit fee charged over the period in dispute to be reasonable and payable by the first applicant.”
“The tribunal finds the first applicant has misunderstood the purpose of the audit or appreciated that it is a simple tool to sign off accounts, rather than provide oversight or recommendations.”
“The tribunal finds the first applicant is liable to contribute towards the costs of cleaning, caretaking, communal repairs, estate management/security and removal of bulk rubbish pursuant to the terms of his lease and as defined by the meaning of the 'Block' and 'Common Parts during the period in dispute.”
“The tribunal finds the first applicant is liable to contribute towards the costs of cleaning, caretaking, communal repairs, estate management/security and removal of bulk rubbish pursuant to the terms of his lease.”
“The tribunal finds the first applicant is liable to contribute towards the costs of cleaning, caretaking, communal repairs, estate management/security and removal of bulk rubbish pursuant to the terms of his lease.”
“The tribunal finds the first applicant has been given ample time, in which to comply with the tribunal's directions and further and amended directions made following a number of case management hearings, most recently on 7 October 2025.”
“the tribunal finds the first applicant failed to act on either of these two matters and had come to the hearing with an application that failed to fully particularise the heads of service charge he challenged or provide to the tribunal a readable copy of the additional documents upon which he now sought to rely, in order to establish their importance (if any) to his application.”
“The tribunal did not accepts as a good reason the fact that Mr Matthews was in full-time work for the failure to provide all the documentation on which he wished to rely in good time as the directions given by the tribunal had been generously amended to accommodate the parties.”
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.