CAM/00MC/LIS/2020/0014 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MC/LIS/2020/0014, decided 28 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Tetbury Court, Prospect Street, Reading, Berkshire RG1 7TR and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Tetbury Court, Prospect Street, Reading, Berkshire RG1 7TR
Decision date: 28 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: John Mortimer Property Management Limited (now Encore group).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2015) | £7,200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016) | £2,381.84 | £2,381.84 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016) | £1,555.20 | £1,555.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016-17) | £22,168.26 | £5,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | £1,996 | £1,996 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2017) | £3,677.24 | £3,677.24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018) | £5,335.20 | £5,335.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £2,353 | £2,353 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018) | £10,598.90 | £10,598.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019) | £3,040 | £3,040 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £324 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2019) | £11,205.36 | £10,675 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £10,040.90 | £10,040.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £382,119.87 | £382,119.87 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“In our assessment, this cost was not reasonably incurred. The scaffolding up in 2010 for the last set of redecoration works should have been used to inspect the state of repair of the blocks.”
“We accept the explanations in paragraph 32 of the Respondent's statement of case for the other items. In our assessment, based on the information provided by the parties, these other costs were reasonably incurred.”
“We accept that explanation and we consider these costs of propping the worst-affected areas of the garage block were reasonably incurred.”
“We determine that £17,168.26 (£22,168.26 less £5,000) of these scaffolding costs were not reasonably incurred.”
“We consider that the costs which were charged to the service charge account were reasonably incurred.”
“For the reasons given in the more detailed examination below of such charges in 2018, we are satisfied that these charges were reasonably incurred.”
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.