LON/00BK/LSC/2024/0356 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2024/0356, decided 1 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 14, 26 Medway Street, London and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 14, 26 Medway Street, London
Decision date: 1 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Prime Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024/25) | £3,515.90 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease, Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Management fees (2023/24) | £211 | £211 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024/25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Cleaning | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges | — | — | conceded | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mr Castle accepted that that sum was not chargeable to the Applicant as a service charge... the Respondent now accepts that the £3,515.90 charged for window repairs was not payable and conceded that it should be reimbursed”
“the Applicant's share of the managing agents fee amounted to £211 in 2023/24… a charge of up to about £400 per unit would normally be within the reasonable range”
“we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to determine any question relating to the voluntary payments towards the major works”
“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 27A of the 1985 Act is to declare what services charges are or will be payable and reasonable. It does not include declaring whether and how much interest is payable on a retained sum.”
“we do not think that the Applicant has discharged the burden of persuading us that they are either unreasonable decisions, as opposed to decisions with which she does not agree (the cleaning)”
“It was not being said that any specific item of expenditure was excessive. Any delay was a result of the time taken to undertake the section 20 consultation.”
“it became apparent that the directors of the Respondent had misinterpreted this covenant to include a wider obligation to repair the windows.”
“The project, however, was delayed every year thereafter.”
“it may be that that the Respondent lacked clarity on the question of when the system was introduced as a result of a change in managing agent.”
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.