CAM/00KF/LSC/2025/0613 — service charge decision
In CAM/00KF/LSC/2025/0613, decided 19 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Richmond House, 67-71 Victoria Avenue, Southend on Sea, SS2 6EB and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Richmond House, 67-71 Victoria Avenue, Southend on Sea, SS2 6EB
Decision date: 19 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Premier Block Management Limited (PBM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2019-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2025-2026) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Allowed in full | Insurance not market tested |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal was satisfied that the invoices produced by the Second Respondent confirmed that window cleaning had taken place and was therefore permitted for 2021 to 2022”
“the Second Respondent confirmed that no service charges in respect of window cleaning were apportioned against the leaseholders of RH despite being included in each year's budget”
“Notwithstanding that there were no invoices relating to the general cleaning produced, the Tribunal was not satisfied of the Applicants' submissions or evidence presented and accepted that the Second Respondent was not the owner at the material time, but the sums claimed were supported within the verified accounts.”
“The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicants had produced sufficient evidence to establish that the sums claimed were unreasonable or should be allowed at the percentage they sought or that concierge staff had been furloughed during the Covid-19 pandemic”
“the Tribunal deems the sums as demanded in respect of years 2019-2025 and budgeted for 2025/26 are reasonable”
“The Tribunal was satisfied of the Second Respondent's evidence and did not consider the Applicants' arguments under this head to be persuasive. The sums therefore sought in respect of all years under this head are deemed reasonable and payable.”
“The Tribunal was concerned that none of the parties had considered it prudent to request an extension of the time estimate given the number of service charge years in dispute and number of witnesses intended to be called.”
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.