LON/00BK/LSC/2025/1050 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2025/1050, decided 15 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 16 Evelyn Court, Stourcliffe Street, London W1H 5AS and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 16 Evelyn Court, Stourcliffe Street, London W1H 5AS
Decision date: 15 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021/22) | £274.85 | £274.85 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022/23) | £10,282.03 | £7,834.48 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2023/24) | £6,830 | £6,830 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25) | £8,828.46 | £6,619.38 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2024/25) | £1,953.46 | £3,453.08 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024/25) | £1,650 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2025/26) | £12,604.52 | £16,042.11 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025/26) | £4,950 | £6,300 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2025/26) | £820.66 | £1,450.66 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2025/26) | £1,147.08 | £1,459.92 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
Key passages (verbatim)
“we consider the sum of £274.85 to be sufficiently small to be reasonable in any case and on balance, given the scope of matters in the Seventh Schedule to the Lease which fall within the remit of the landlords, payable.”
“The Lease requires the tenant to pay 7% of the service charges, which is £7,834.48.”
“the tribunal determines that the amount payable under the Lease in respect of service charge year 2023/24 is £8,692.74 however the tribunal notes that the Applicant has agreed to accept the lower sum of £6,830.00.”
“The actual service charge was not the £95,000.00 as this included the charge for the ground rent. The amount to be apportioned should have been £94,562.50, of which the tenant should pay 7%.”
“Based on a strict interpretation of the Lease, the Respondent should pay £3,453.08, although the tribunal notes that the Applicants have charged £1,953.46.”
“there is no provision in the lease which allows the Applicant to charge for a Reserve Fund.”
“It is not clear from the documentation provided to the tribunal whether the insurance premium relates solely to the residential parts, or includes the commercial parts of the Building.”
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.