CAM/00KF/LAM/2025/0001 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LAM/2025/0001, decided 11 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Audley Court, 1 Forge Way, Southend-on-Sea and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Audley Court, 1 Forge Way, Southend-on-Sea
Decision date: 11 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Gateway Property Management Ltd (GPM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has not breached clause 6.1.3 of the Lease. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's evidence that a reserve fund has been established, and that this is shown within the service charge accounts.”
“The Tribunal does not find on the evidence before the Tribunal that this clause was breached... the current managing agents are managing the site and work is being completed.”
“The Tribunal does not accept the Applicants' position that the insurance costs were unreasonable. The Respondent set out at page 214 of the Bundle the recommendation that they had received from their insurance broker, which confirmed that the market had been tested.”
“The Tribunal does not, therefore, accept the Applicants' position that the management fees charged by the Respondent were unreasonable.”
“The Tribunal does not accept the Applicants' position that the charge for waste and recycling collection was unreasonable.”
“He confirmed that the volume and breadth of communication had made it challenging to keep track of and determine which matters had been addressed and which matters remained outstanding.”
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.