CAM/00MD/LSC/2025/0663 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MD/LSC/2025/0663, decided 22 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 6 Kingsway and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6 Kingsway
Decision date: 22 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Alba Management Services.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2025) | £11,994 | £1,999 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2025) | £19,926 | £1,660.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | £2,544 | £316 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | £2,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2025) | — | £83.33 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal therefore determines that the cost was reasonably incurred, and the Applicant's share of 1/6 is payable (£1999).”
“We consider that a reasonable cost for the works would be half that which was charged, i.e. £9963… The Applicant's share of the bathroom works is therefore reduced to 1/6 of £9963, namely £1660.50”
“The Tribunal therefore determines that this cost was reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. The Applicant's share is 1/6, i.e. £316.”
“The cost of alternative accommodation is not a rechargeable item under the express terms of the service charge machinery in the Lease.”
“We are prepared to allow a cost of £500 including VAT for the s.20 procedure… The Applicant's share of that sum (assuming 1/6) is £83.33.”
“Given the inability of the Alba's Mr Saint answer questions in relation to nature of the refurbishment works (Mr Saint had not inspected them), we are not satisfied there has been a satisfactory degree of actual management of this project by Alba.”
“the Respondent has not been as forthcoming with information as it might suggest. We agree with the Applicant that her rights are those of a leaseholder irrespective of directorship of the Respondent company, and her decision not to be a director does not provide an excuse for lack of transparency in relation to the figures and the works, which is evident in this case.”
“they did not undertake an assessment of the Lease before making that decision.”
“The copy before us in the bundle does not contain any summary of rights and obligations for Leaseholders”
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.