Decision summary

LON/00BG/LSC/2025/0636 — service charge decision

In LON/00BG/LSC/2025/0636, decided 13 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flats 72 & 73 Candy Wharf, 22 Copperfield Road, E3 4RL and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flats 72 & 73 Candy Wharf, 22 Copperfield Road, E3 4RL
Decision date: 13 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Stirling Estate Management.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2022-23)£3,689.57£3,689.57Allowed in full
Administration charges (2022-23)£234£234Allowed in full
Other charges (2022-23)£5,069.57£5,069.57Allowed in full
Other charges (2021-22)£2,937.47£2,937.47Allowed in full
Other charges (2023-24)£4,711.73£4,711.73Allowed in full
Reserve fund contributions (2023-24)£343.50£343.50Allowed in full
Other charges (2023-24)£4,711.73£4,711.73Allowed in full
Reserve fund contributions (2023-24)£343.50£343.50Allowed in full

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The tribunal determines that the sum of £22,041.07 is payable by the Respondent in respect of the service charges”
On other charges
“the sum of £22,041.07 is payable by the Respondent”
On administration charges
“The tribunal determines that the amount of £22,041.07 claimed by the Applicant is payable and reasonable.”
On other charges
“The Tribunal also accepts the argument of the Applicant that any challenge to the balancing charge relating to a failure to consult needed to have been made properly.”
On other charges
“The tribunal determines that the amount of £22,041.07 claimed by the Applicant is payable and reasonable.”
On other charges
“The tribunal determines that the amount of £22,041.07 claimed by the Applicant is payable and reasonable.”
On reserve fund contributions
“After considerable delay, and persistent requests from the Respondent, the Applicant, having requested a further delay, produced the information emailing copies of invoices on 28th November 2025. These were sent after the Respondents office was closed for the weekend, causing a further time delay for the Respondent.”
Of Applicant (Candy Wharf RTM Company Limited)
“The Applicant has not responded to the queries, nor provided the missing invoices”
Of Applicant (Candy Wharf RTM Company Limited)

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.