LON/00BG/LSC/2025/0917 — service charge decision
In LON/00BG/LSC/2025/0917, decided 9 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 68 Boardwalk Place, London E14 5SE and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 68 Boardwalk Place, London E14 5SE
Decision date: 9 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Bespoke Property Management Ltd (BPM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2025) | £1,260 | £660 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2025) | £570 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2025) | £1,231.26 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2025) | £540 | £240 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2025) | £114 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the amount payable in respect of administration charges for pest control at the Property is £660. Given the Applicant's acceptance that £660 was payable and reasonable for pest control services at the Property and the Respondent's acceptance that the additional invoice for £600 was for pest control in the communal area, this sum was reached by agreement between the parties.”
“the tribunal is not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the evidence demonstrates that the presence of cockroaches (or the need for preventative treatment) in Flat 67 was caused or permitted to occur by the Applicant or his tenants”
“There was no expert evidence to support the Respondent's contention that the cockroaches originated from the Property as opposed to being a building-wide issue or having come up through the service pipes' conduits. The fact of there being a significant number of cockroaches in the Property does not prove that every cockroach in the Building emanated from the Property.”
“the tribunal does not consider that the total cost of £840 for cleaning the carpets on the fourth floor was reasonably incurred … the Respondent should have instructed a contractor to use appropriate cleaning equipment, such as machinery and chemicals, in the first instance rather than incur two separate costs for this work.”
“The tribunal was not taken to any part of the Lease which provides for an arrears fee. In any event, administration charges were in dispute. The Respondent has not succeeded in establishing that any of the administration charges are due and owing, they only being payable once the appropriate demand accompanied by the statutory summary of rights and obligations has been served on the Applicant.”
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.