LON/00BK/LSL/2025/0003 — service charge decision
In LON/00BK/LSL/2025/0003, decided 9 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flat 5, 103-105 Harley Street, London W1G 6AJ and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5, 103-105 Harley Street, London W1G 6AJ
Decision date: 9 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2023) | £990.60 | £750 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2024) | — | £750 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2025) | — | £800 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023) | £891.57 | £891.57 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £73.33 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2025) | £108.27 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2025) | £865.73 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2025) | £73.33 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £169.14 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £72.04 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | £72.04 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“there is nothing on its face to show that the Applicants themselves were late in paying or why it should be payable by the Applicants for any other reason. The Applicants have raised a reasonable objection and there is no evidence before us in support of the Respondent's position.”
“the Respondent describes the Building as a higher risk building but does not substantiate in any meaningful way why the fees should be as high as they are … the management fees for 2023 and 2024 are reduced to £750.00 per flat per year”
“the Respondent describes the Building as a higher risk building but does not substantiate in any meaningful way why the fees should be as high as they are … the management fees for 2023 and 2024 are reduced to £750.00 per flat per year”
“the estimated management fees for 2025 are reduced to £800.00 per flat”
“the AOV smoke vent and maintenance charge does not fall within paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 8. The Applicants have not challenged this charge on any basis other than the BSA, and they have not challenged the amount of the charge, therefore the charge is payable in full.”
“The Respondent has not provided any real proof to support its position or to demonstrate the efforts made to obtain the refund and therefore, based on the information before us, we determine that this sum is not payable.”
“the written evidence of the Fire Risk Assessor's view is the best evidence available and should have been disclosed by the Respondent”
“It would have been better for the Applicants to have made their submission in a more formal manner, but the reason for the late submission is very clear and we consider it appropriate for the Applicants to have drawn this point to the tribunal's attention.”
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.