CAM/00MC/LSC/2020/0025 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MC/LSC/2020/0025, decided 23 December 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 16 & 35 Albion Terrace, Reading, Berks and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 16 & 35 Albion Terrace, Reading, Berks
Decision date: 23 December 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2018-19) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Major works (2018-19) | £442,890 | £442,890 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | — | £50 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Major works (2018-19) | £26,000 | £26,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2014-2020) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2014-2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Front and end facades: there shall be an agreed deduction of £40 for the Property (i.e. £20 per flat)”
“Roof: The Respondent's cost is reasonable, it being established on the Respondent's representations that the delay in striking the scaffold has not incurred, and will not incur, any additional costs”
“Rear entrance walls: there shall be an agreed deduction of £40 for the Property (i.e. £20 per flat). The Tribunal finds the works were not to a reasonable standard”
“Front/rear windows: there shall be an agreed deduction of £50 for flat 16 only”
“Front garden plants destroyed during major works. No deduction (item withdrawn by Applicant)”
“Garden pagoda: no deduction (item withdrawn by Applicant)”
“Mr Dugdale candidly accepted that previous directors of the Respondent had been "befuddled" by matters, and that previous managing agents had not kept records, and or least could not find them.”
“It was further established at the outset that neither party had fully complied with Judge Wayte's directions. The absence of a Schedule of service charge items, and the lack of concise statements of case or witness statements from the parties themselves meant that time was spent establishing the parties' cases, which somewhat developed over the course of the hearing.”
“whilst the Tribunal appreciates that there has ostensibly been poor management previously by the Respondent's former directors (and perhaps agents), re-apportionment of service charge proportions to any significant degree would not be in both parties' better interests, whether in terms of time, administration or costs.”
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.