LON/00BK/LSC/2026/0103 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSC/2026/0103, decided 2 October 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, 102 Belgrave Road, London, SW1V 2BJ and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, 102 Belgrave Road, London, SW1V 2BJ
Decision date: 2 October 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Axe Block Management Ltd (from 1 Aug 2025); previously LRPM Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2025-26) | £1,560 | £1,560 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2025-26) | £715 | £715 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2025-26) | £104 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2025-26) | £444.60 | £444.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2025-26) | £296.40 | £296.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025-26) | £169 | £169 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2025-26) | £78 | £78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2025-26) | £58.50 | £58.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-26) | £39 | £39 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025-26) | £26 | £26 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2025-26) | £19.50 | £19.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2025-26) | £45.50 | £45.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025-26) | £147.97 | £147.97 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Bearing all of the circumstances in mind and contemplating the costs which might arise at short notice, particularly in respect of a listed heritage building containing seven flats, the tribunal finds that the sums are reasonable, this element of the service charge reasonable, and the Applicants' share payable by them.”
“The tribunal determines that it is reasonable in principle for the Respondent to arrange for standard building cover. There is no evidence that the cover envisaged was unreasonable, and so the Applicants' share of the premium in respect of that cover is payable.”
“The Respondent concedes that this was an erroneous entry, partly-duplicative as it is of the 'Building & Terrorism Insurance' line item… The tribunal determines that the Applicants' share of this cost, £104, is not payable.”
“Since the object of the current exercise is only to assess the reasonableness of the estimated costs for 2025/26, and there being no evidence before the tribunal that LRPM's estimated costs were unreasonable, the tribunal finds the Applicants' share of this item payable by them.”
“The actual weekly cost of the cleaning is £38, or about £190 per month [412-9], or £2,280 per year. To keep clean the communal parts of the 7-storey Building that seems to us to be a reasonable sum in central London, and there is no evidence that it is not.”
“There is no evidence that this estimated cost is unreasonable. The Applicants' share of it is payable by them.”
“the tribunal considers the Applicants made unnecessarily lengthy, demanding, and combative requests in correspondence for a far greater breadth and depth of information than they were reasonably entitled to, at least within the proceedings”
“it was unclear why the written application had not been made earlier (particularly in the light of the Respondent's earlier application for an extension of time), nor why the Respondent could not evidence the same matters by other means.”
“no good explanation was given as to why documents said to be relevant had been omitted from it and no earlier attempt to include them made.”
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.