CAM/00KA/LSC/2022/0046 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KA/LSC/2022/0046, decided 8 December 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 45, The Elms, St. John's St, Luton and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 45, The Elms, St. John's St, Luton
Decision date: 8 December 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Michael Laurie Magar Ltd, t/a MLM Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £153 | £153 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £188.45 | £188.45 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | £155 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“In the Tribunal's determination, the sum demanded was a service charge payable in respect of a relevant cost which had been reasonably incurred. The pump required replacement, and did not result from vandalism or an insurable risk, rather from wear and tear.”
“Given no challenge was made to the letter of 22 September 2020, we are satisfied that the Respondent has complied with s.20B(2) of the Act, and that the sum of £188.45 is contractually payable.”
“We determine that the cost charged over and above the budgeted cost was reasonable in amount.”
“In the Tribunal's determination, the cost of refuse removal was both reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“Additional cleaning charges £155”
“Front door replacement (part of demand for £218.21)”
“It would not be just and equitable to prevent the Respondent recovering the costs of these proceedings from the Applicants through the service charges or by way of any relevant administration charge.”
“It was also clear that many of the Applicants' concerns were simple queries or questions of the Respondent, rather than her establishing a prima facie case that costs were not reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount.”
“We do express hope, however, that the Respondent will aim to be more accurate in its service charge budgeting, so as to help the Applicants and other leaseholders in the future, particularly now that the accounts appear up to date.”
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.