CAM/00MD/LSC/2020/0041 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MD/LSC/2020/0041, decided 2 September 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at 11 Haynes Close, Slough SL3 8NA and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 11 Haynes Close, Slough SL3 8NA
Decision date: 2 September 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Townends Lettings.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016) | £345.77 | £345.77 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2017) | — | — | conceded | Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £6,773.05 | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £1,191 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £3,974.01 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“She also said and we are aware that the insurance market is quite volatile for reasons which are not directly connected to any specific risks affecting the property.”
“In the absence of any specific challenge to any particular item of expenditure, there is no substance to this dispute.”
“Ad hoc arrangements might possibly be cheaper per unit of work but would also be less reliable and more expensive in terms of management time.”
“We accept that the cleaning of the common parts was limited in scope but there was/is work to be done and the costs do not strike us as being in any way excessive.”
“whilst we accept that the work done was of limited scope, it needed to be done and the finding and retaining of a contractor willing to do it needed to be achieved without undue expenditure of management time. The charge was reasonable.”
“it was a condition of the 20-year guarantee offered by the contractor in respect of that work that the gutters and roof be cleaned once a year. In order for that work to be done it is necessary for scaffolding to be erected.”
“We saw no documentary evidence of these demands but do not doubt that oral queries or challenges were made or that when they were made, they were not properly addressed by the Respondent.”
“the service charge account was substantially in arrears at the time of her purchase and not well managed.”
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.