LON/00BK/LSC/2025/1276 & others — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2025/1276 & others, decided 11 August 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 70-72 Westbourne Terrace, London, W2 6QA and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 70-72 Westbourne Terrace, London, W2 6QA
Decision date: 11 August 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Investment Technology Ltd (Canonbury Management).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2021-2026) | £21,035.40 | £10,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-2026) | £9,480 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-2026) | £2,475 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-2026) | £11,155 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-2026) | £525 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-2026) | £1,004.50 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2025-2026) | £18,510 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Apportionment error |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-2026) | £57,036.20 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Apportionment error |
Key passages (verbatim)
“We reduce this by slightly more than 50% and allow £10,000, leaving a sum of £40,000 for the Manager to pay over to WBT.”
“The total costs claimed for this hearing are disproportionate and manifestly unreasonable.”
“The sums claimed are unreasonable.”
“This is excessive.”
“This is disallowed.”
“This is excessive.”
“The Tribunal has not been impressed by the conduct of either Mr Cleaver or Mr McElroy. It is apparent that there is considerable ill will between them. The 18 leaseholders at the Property have not been served well by either of them. They are both experienced property managers who regularly appear before this Tribunal. Neither have complied with the Tribunal's Directions. Neither has shown the professionalism that the Tribunal would expect of them.”
“Mr Cleaver became truculent with the Tribunal when pressed as to why he had failed to comply with the Directions. It was necessary for the Tribunal to adjourn for a short period, after which Mr Cleaver apologised for his behaviour.”
“The Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Cleaver's refusal to pay over the sums to WBT's managing agent had been manifestly unreasonable.”
“The Management Order has not been a success. The communal supply of heating and hot water to the Property has not been resolved.”
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.