CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0055 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LSC/2022/0055, decided 5 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 103 & 103A Oakleigh Park Drive, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 103 & 103A Oakleigh Park Drive, Leigh-on-Sea, Essex
Decision date: 5 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: JC Gibb & Co.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016) | £582.15 | £582.15 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017) | £604.63 | £604.63 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £647.10 | £647.10 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £676.10 | £676.10 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £705.46 | £705.46 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £934.68 | £934.68 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £934.68 | £934.68 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“For the accounting years 2016 to 2020 Ms Reeve had agreed or admitted and paid the service charge in respect of the building insurance costs and so cannot now challenge them in these proceedings.”
“For the accounting years 2016 to 2020 Ms Reeve had agreed or admitted and paid the service charge in respect of the building insurance costs and so cannot now challenge them in these proceedings.”
“For the accounting years 2016 to 2020 Ms Reeve had agreed or admitted and paid the service charge in respect of the building insurance costs and so cannot now challenge them in these proceedings.”
“For the accounting years 2016 to 2020 Ms Reeve had agreed or admitted and paid the service charge in respect of the building insurance costs and so cannot now challenge them in these proceedings.”
“For the accounting years 2016 to 2020 Ms Reeve had agreed or admitted and paid the service charge in respect of the building insurance costs and so cannot now challenge them in these proceedings.”
“The tribunal therefore determines that the service charge demanded in respect of the insurance premiums paid is reasonably incurred and reasonable in sum for each of the accounting years raised in the application.”
“The tribunal further notes that s19(2)(a) of the 1985 Act was repealed on 30 September 2003 by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. The respondent is cautioned against routinely citing this authority to the first-tier tribunal without properly addressing its current application.”
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.