Service-Charge Review — Flat 6, Pelham Court, London SE—

Prepared for: A. Specimen · Case: V1-000-SPECIMEN · Date: 8 July 2026
Demand reviewed: annual service-charge demand with balancing charges, dated 1 April 2026, total £2,846.00
Documents relied on: the demand (3 pp.); lease dated 24 June 1988 (58 pp., complete); 2025 demand (2 pp.)

1. The verdict

Of £2,846.00 demanded: £1,486.00 carries challenge grounds (three strong, two arguable) and £1,360.00 is properly supported. Separately, the demand itself is procedurally defective — it does not identify your landlord — which means none of the £2,846.00 is treated as due until that is cured.

The three things that matter most:

The demand names only the managing agent. Until the landlord's name and address are furnished, the charges are treated as not due (ss.47–48 LTA 1987) — strong.
The £412.50 external-decorations balancing charge is for costs incurred 19 months before the demand, with no interim notice. You are not liable for it (s.20B LTA 1985) — strong.
The £45.00 "EV infrastructure feasibility survey" has no authority in your lease at all — strong, and it would repeat in future years if unchallenged.

What this is: analysis and information from your documents, with every finding cited so you or any professional can verify it. It is not legal advice; how to act is your decision, and section 6 sets out risks alongside actions.

Get this for your demand — £49£49 for the full review · the challenge papers £100 more, only if there's something to send · delivered within 48 hours of your documents

2. Your demand, reconstructed

Swipe the table sideways for all columns →

#	Item	Amount	Lease authority	Status
1	Cleaning of common parts	£480.00	Cl. 5(2): "cleaning… of the entrance halls landings and staircases"	SUPPORTED
2	Gardening	£190.00	Cl. 5(3): "maintenance of the garden areas"	SUPPORTED
3	Common-parts electricity	£210.00	Cl. 5(4)	SUPPORTED
4	Buildings insurance	£612.00	Cl. 4(1) (landlord to insure, cost recoverable Cl. 5(1))	CHALLENGEABLE → F4
5	Management fee	£372.00	Cl. 5(6): "proper fees of managing agents"	CHALLENGEABLE → F3
6	External decorations (2024 works, balancing)	£412.50	Cl. 5(1) — but see F2	CHALLENGEABLE → F2
7	EV infrastructure feasibility survey	£45.00	None found — see F5	NO LEASE AUTHORITY → F5
8	Reserve fund contribution	£480.00	Cl. 5(8)	SUPPORTED
9	"Demand preparation fee"	£44.50	Administration charge — see F6	CHALLENGEABLE → F6
	Total	£2,846.00

Totals check: items sum to £2,846.00, matching the demand. Your apportionment: the lease specifies 12.5% of expenditure (Cl. 5, Fifth Schedule); the demand applies 12.5% throughout — consistent.

3. Procedural compliance

Swipe the table sideways for all columns →

Check	Statute	Result
Summary of rights enclosed, prescribed wording	s.21B LTA 1985; SI 2007/1257	PASS
Landlord's name and address on the demand	ss.47–48 LTA 1987	FAIL → F1
Costs within 18 months (or interim notice given)	s.20B LTA 1985	FAIL for item 6 → F2
Consultation on qualifying works	s.20 LTA 1985	PASS (notices of intention and estimates received for the 2024 works)

4. Findings

F1 — The demand does not identify your landlord Strong · affects the whole £2,846.00

What we found: Every page of the demand names only "Crestline Property Management Ltd". Your landlord (Pelham Court Freeholds Ltd, per your lease) appears nowhere, and no address for the landlord is given.
Why it matters: s.47 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 requires every written demand to contain the landlord's name and address. Where it does not, the service-charge and administration-charge parts are "treated for all purposes as not being due… at any time before that information is furnished" (s.47(2)). s.48 separately requires an England & Wales address for service; until given, charges are not due.
What you can do: The enclosed findings letter puts the defect to Crestline and states that payment is withheld until a compliant demand is served. This pauses the obligation; it does not erase it — expect a corrected demand, at which point the supported items become payable.
What the landlord will likely say: That the landlord's details appear in the lease or previous correspondence. That does not cure the demand: the statute requires the information in the demand.
Risk of acting: Withholding on this ground is lawful while the defect stands. Know the wider mechanics: a landlord cannot forfeit for unpaid service charges unless the amount is finally determined by a tribunal or admitted (s.81 Housing Act 1996), and even then only 14 days after determination. Practical risks are arrears letters, admin fees (themselves challengeable) and, if you have a mortgage, lender-pressure tactics — tell your lender in writing that the sum is disputed. Withhold in writing, with reasons, never by silence.

F2 — £412.50 of 2024 works costs demanded 19 months late Strong · £412.50

What we found: The balancing charge for external decorations relates to works completed August 2024; Crestline's own covering note dates the final contractor invoice 5 September 2024. The demand was served 1 April 2026 — 19 months later. Neither you nor your 2025 demand received any written notification that these costs had been incurred and would be recovered.
Why it matters: s.20B(1) LTA 1985: you are not liable for costs incurred more than 18 months before the demand, unless within 18 months of the costs being incurred you were notified in writing (s.20B(2)). A late notification cannot be backdated.
What you can do: Refuse this item in the findings letter. If Crestline claims a notice was given, ask for a copy — a newsletter or letter that both mentions the costs and states you would be required to contribute can qualify, so what any such document actually says will decide this.
What the landlord will likely say: That the 2024 consultation notices count as s.20B(2) notification. Estimates before works are generally about future costs, and the section requires notification that costs have been incurred; the dates on their own documents make this their problem.
Risk of acting: Low — if the facts hold, this ground extinguishes the liability rather than pausing it. The dispute, if any, is factual.

F3 — Management fee out of line with the market Arguable · up to ~£120 of £372.00

What we found: The fee equals 15.7% of the year's other expenditure, and rose 24% on 2025 with no visible change in service. Tribunals commonly benchmark ordinary blocks at roughly 10–15% or a flat per-unit fee; percentage-of-spend fees attract scrutiny because they reward spending.
Why it matters: s.19(1) LTA 1985 — costs recoverable only to the extent reasonably incurred.
What you can do: Challenge the increase in the findings letter and request the management agreement via the enclosed s.21/s.22 route. Tribunals usually reduce rather than eliminate such fees — pursue this alongside the stronger grounds, not alone.
What the landlord will likely say: That the fee is within market range for the services provided. Comparators decide it; the FTT sees many.
Risk of acting: Merits-based: weigh ~£120 against effort. Its value here is cumulative, bundled with F1–F2.

F4 — Insurance up 33.6% with no evidence of testing Arguable · portion of £612.00 · inspection first

What we found: Buildings insurance rose from £458.00 (2025) to £612.00 with no explanation, no evidence the placement was broked or tested, and renewal through the same agent-connected broker as prior years.
Why it matters: s.19(1) again; the Upper Tribunal requires a landlord to show a rational, market-aware placement process (Cos Services v Nicholson [2019]). Undisclosed commissions on placement have been held unreasonable.
What you can do: The s.21/s.22 inspection is the tool: request the policy, the broker's remuneration disclosure and any alternative quotes. Grade this after seeing them.
What the landlord will likely say: Market-wide premium hardening. Sometimes true — which is why this is graded arguable pending the documents.
Risk of acting: None at the inspection stage; it costs a letter.

F5 — "EV infrastructure feasibility survey": no lease authority Strong · £45.00, recurring risk

What we found: Your lease's service-charge machinery (Cl. 5(1)–(8)) covers repair, maintenance, insurance, staffing and services "of a kind provided at the date of this Lease" (Cl. 5(5) sweeper). A feasibility survey for new EV charging infrastructure is an improvement-related cost outside all of them.
Why it matters: A landlord recovers only what the lease permits; statute sits on top of contract, and here the contract does not reach. This ground extinguishes the item.
What you can do: Refuse it in the findings letter and flag that if the project proceeds, works costs would face the same objection — worth £45 today, considerably more later.
What the landlord will likely say: That the sweeper clause covers it. Its own words ("of a kind provided at the date of the Lease", 1988) are the answer.
Risk of acting: Low. Small sums, clean principle, future-proofing value.

F6 — £44.50 "demand preparation fee" Arguable · £44.50

What we found: A charge for preparing the demand itself, appearing for the first time this year, with no accompanying summary of rights for administration charges.
Why it matters: This is a variable administration charge (Sch 11, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002): payable only if reasonable (para 3), and a demand for it must be accompanied by the prescribed administration-charge summary (para 4; SI 2007/1258) — absent here, so it may be withheld until properly demanded.
What you can do: Withhold and challenge in the findings letter; ask what the fee is actually for, given Cl. 5(6) already pays for management.
What the landlord will likely say: Standard practice. Double-charging for management is the rebuttal.
Risk of acting: As F1's panel; trivial sums, same mechanics.

5. What is properly supported

We checked the cleaning, gardening, common-parts electricity and reserve-fund lines against the lease and the demand arithmetic and found them recoverable as demanded (£1,360.00 in total). A clean verdict on these is worth having: it narrows the dispute to the items above and signals to the landlord that the challenge is considered rather than scattergun.

6. Your options, in order of escalation

Write first. The enclosed findings letter puts F1, F2, F5 and F6 to Crestline with a 21-day response request, and withholds payment on the s.47 defect meanwhile. Most disputes end here.
Get the evidence. The enclosed s.21 request compels the certified cost summary (this building exceeds four dwellings, so a qualified accountant must certify it); s.22 inspection of invoices follows. Non-compliance without reasonable excuse is a summary offence (fine up to level 4) — in practice, leverage.
Tribunal. First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), Form Leasehold 3, built for leaseholders without lawyers; fees £114 application + £227 hearing (from 13 July 2026). File the s.20C and paragraph 5A applications alongside — they stop the landlord recovering its legal costs through your service charge. Charges you have already paid remain challengeable (s.27A(5)).

7. Limits of this review

We could not verify from paper: whether any s.20B(2) notice exists that we have not seen (F2 — ask for it); the insurance placement process (F4 — inspection resolves it); and works quality, which no document shows. This review reflects the law in force at 8 July 2026.

Sources

Statutory references verified against primary sources (legislation.gov.uk; HMCTS/GOV.UK for tribunal forms and fees) as at 8 July 2026: LTA 1985 ss.19, 20, 20B, 21, 21B, 22, 25, 27A; LTA 1987 ss.47–48; Housing Act 1996 s.81; CLRA 2002 Sch 11; SI 2007/1257; SI 2007/1258; Daejan v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; Cos Services v Nicholson [2019] UKUT 382 (LC). Lease quotations: specimen lease, clauses as cited.

In a real engagement the review arrives as a PDF like this one for £49; where there are grounds, the challenge papers it refers to are drafted for your signature as the £100 stage. Every case differs; this specimen shows the method, the depth and the honesty of grading you are buying.

Get this for your demand — £49£49 for the full review · the challenge papers £100 more, only if there's something to send · delivered within 48 hours of your documents

Not today? Take the free toolkit — the statutory letter and checklist, no sign-up.