LON/00BK/LSC/2025/0793 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2025/0793, decided 2 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat D, 67 Abbey Road, London NW8 0AE and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat D, 67 Abbey Road, London NW8 0AE
Decision date: 2 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2021-2022) | £401.25 | £150 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2023) | £249.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-2023) | £224.58 | £224.58 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The tribunal does not accept that the reason for the charges being so high in 2021 to 2022 is that there was undercharging in previous years… Applying its knowledge and experience the tribunal determines the rate of £600 for the year 2021 to 2022.”
“It is reasonable to expect the commercial premises to be on a full repairing lease… so that no expenditure falls on the Respondent for repairing those parts of the premises… this item of expenditure is not reasonably incurred.”
“The tribunal finds that the costs are reasonably incurred and therefore payable as this is a common drain between 2 properties which needs to be unblocked irrespective of from where the blockage emanates.”
“The tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicant and determines that the 2 invoices were reasonably charged to the service charge and payable. These are normal incidents of management.”
“The tribunal does not accept that the reason for the charges being so high in 2021 to 2022 is that there was undercharging in previous years. The contract started in 2020 only one year prior to the year in question and if the charge for the previous year was £411 and for the succeeding year £739 there could not be such a massive undercharging in the previous year.”
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.