LON/00BK/LSC/2025/0869 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2025/0869, decided 16 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, The Brazen Head, 69 Lisson Street, London NW1 5DA and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, The Brazen Head, 69 Lisson Street, London NW1 5DA
Decision date: 16 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £697.21 | £697.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £1,849.81 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2025) | £1,849.81 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2023) | £345.80 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, No Section 20 consultation |
| Legal & professional costs | £1,920.80 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | £231.37 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the insurance upon the basis of which the insurance rent charged and invoiced in respect of 2024/25 was reasonably incurred.”
“The Tribunal declines to determine the reasonableness of the estimated service charges.”
“The Tribunal declines to determine the reasonableness of the estimated service charges.”
“The roof repairs fall into the category of matters we decline to determine (see paragraph 45 above). If that were not so, the amount capable of being charged in the service charge would be limited to £250.”
“these charges are parasitic on the issues that would arise in relation to the out-turn figures, should they be challenged.”
“the late payment interest claim is dependent on there being an obligation to pay that has not been satisfied.”
“We noted at the outset that the bundle prepared by the Applicant was inadequate. It did not include material that had been provided by Mr Dublish (albeit it late). Neither did it include any witness statements, invoices relating to the service costs or relevant certificates.”
“The documentation provided was minimal. The invoice for insurance rent, dated 5 January 2024, contained none of the details required by the lease (including the date by which it should be paid), with the exception of the amount due from the Respondent.”
“We indicated to the parties that it bordered on the absurd to ask the Tribunal to make a determination of the reasonableness of estimated service charges, not only when the final, post reconciliation, figures were available, but also when the reconciliation had been carried out on the basis of a different period to that of the estimated service charge.”
“It was both misconceived in its approach, and in the almost complete lack of proper supporting documentary material.”
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.