CAM/00KF/LSC/2025/0608 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LSC/2025/0608, decided 15 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Mont Dol, 58 Chalkwell Ave, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Mont Dol, 58 Chalkwell Ave, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex
Decision date: 15 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Essex Guild Block Management (EGBM) / Kelly Ivory-Empegliazzo (Tribunal-appointed Manager).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024) | £25,721.70 | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Major works (2024) | £8,366.97 | £8,366.97 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | — | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £17,380 | £17,380 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £5,536 | £5,236 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Major works (2024) | £6,400 | £6,400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £16,188.75 | £16,188.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £19,500 | £19,500 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the costs challenged by the Respondents were all reasonable in amount, save that the Applicant's cost for repairs to the bathstone pillars should be reduced by £300”
“the chimney works were executed to a reasonable standard and the costing of £8366.97 plus contingency of £1000 was reasonable in amount”
“As for the provisional sums, we consider these were used reasonably, given the explanation of the need for temporary repairs.”
“MB's quotation was £20,680, higher than RPD's £17380. L Hurst's quotation was far too low in comparison. We therefore consider the amount charged by the Applicant to have been reasonable in amount.”
“The works ought not to have been signed off in that condition … we would disallow £300 from the total sum.”
“the difference between L Hurst's quotation and that of RPD is insignificant, and the Applicant does not have to go with the cheapest amount … We therefore find the sum of £6400 to be reasonable in amount.”
“Regrettably, in her dispensation statement the Applicant does not exhibit either the MB estimate or the RPD estimate, only the later RPD invoice dated 17 April 2024.”
“The works ought not to have been signed off in that condition.”
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.