CAM/00KF/LIS/2024/0601 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LIS/2024/0601, decided 16 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 30A Whitegate Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 30A Whitegate Road, Southend-on-Sea, Essex
Decision date: 16 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Arkasian Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £368.99 | £368.99 | Reduced | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | £36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the service charge of £368.99 relating to the cost of insurance for the period 21 July 2023 to 31 March 2024 is not currently payable by the Respondents. If a valid demand is made, the service charge of £368.99 will be payable.”
“The administration charges relating to the late payment of the service charge and the preparation of claim documents in the sum of £36 and £300 respectively are not payable.”
“the administration charges are not reasonable in any event. The service charge was not payable. It was therefore not reasonable to incur further charges in pursuing payment.”
“Although it may be the case that the Tribunal can overlook very minor discrepancies in the text (and no determination is being made about that), providing the specific summary of rights contained in the Regulations is a statutory requirement. It is not for this Tribunal to look much beyond that, if at all. The Regulations are clear.”
“Had any tenant receiving this summary looked to make an application to a "leasehold valuation tribunal" they may well have ended up either frustrated in their attempt or believing they had to make an application in Wales (where, for now, leasehold valuation tribunals do still exist). Even if they had realised their application should have been made to the First-tier Tribunal, they may have done so in reliance on the inaccurate costs information in the summary, potentially to significant detriment.”
“The Owner believed it was a mistake and did not consider it important. The Tribunal disagreed. For this reason alone, neither administration charge demand is due.”
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.