LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0354 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2023/0354, decided 7 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at The Water Gardens, Burwood Place, London W2 2DA and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: The Water Gardens, Burwood Place, London W2 2DA
Decision date: 7 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Knight Frank (previously); Savills (current).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2020-21) | £214,900 | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £330 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £326.99 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £165,169 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Staffing & concierge (2020-21) | £657,816 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £340,152 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | £58,533 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“It appears the Respondent never obtained or provided an explanation for the sum of £552.10. Therefore, it is not payable.”
“As the Respondents submitted, the mere absence of an invoice is not sufficient to render not payable a service charge arising from a relevant cost. However, there still needs to be sufficient evidence or a cogent explanation. Neither is present here and so £330 is not payable.”
“There is no explanation apparent. Therefore £326.99 is disallowed.”
“The Kroll report found a significant number of errors in the accounting, many of which the Respondent was forced to concede... the Tribunal has decided that the management fees have not been reasonably incurred to the extent that they exceed 85% of the amount charged in management fees for the 2021 service charge year.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to think that the staff costs are unreasonable in amount.”
“The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's explanation: a. There is no apportionment, each block has its own policy.”
“The Tribunal apologises for the additional time it has taken to produce the written decision.”
“The Kroll report found a significant number of errors in the accounting, many of which the Respondent was forced to concede. They were producing further invoices until quite late in the course of these proceedings. The change-over from Knight Frank to Savills may well have had much to do with that but that change was the Respondent's choice and isn't an excuse. Further, whatever the consequences may be, preparing accounts to the wrong year end is a clear error which inhibits clarity and transparency.”
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.