CAM/00MF/LSC/2022/0070 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MF/LSC/2022/0070, decided 6 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 20 disputed service charge items at Flat 9, The Broccoli Cloister, Woolf Drive, Wokingham, Berkshire and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 9, The Broccoli Cloister, Woolf Drive, Wokingham, Berkshire
Decision date: 6 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £1,488.40 | £1,488.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19) | £36.67 | £36.67 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2018-19) | £465.21 | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £38.87 | £38.87 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Staffing & concierge (2019-20) | — | £350 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020-21) | — | £375 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Staffing & concierge (2021-22) | — | £375 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £25,859.70 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £25,155.50 | £25,155.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £1,458.07 | £1,100 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Glebeland Plant that serves the common parts – These costs relate to fire and safety maintenance works. It seems to us that they were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount”
“Management, accountants and other agents' fees – attributable to the cost of the member of staff who was responsible for running the estate. It seems to us that they were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“Buildings Insurance of Glebelands House – We have determined that the terms of the Tenancy Agreement which provide for the payment of these sums by the Applicant are unfair and unenforceable against her.”
“The fire system – We find that the charges were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“Public Liability Insurance - We have determined that the terms of the Tenancy Agreement which provide for the payment of these sums by the Applicant are unfair and unenforceable against her.”
“dispute had been reduced down to the cost of annual lighting tests in the sum of £294.00 and ad hoc repairs to the common parts in the sum of £1,194.40… we accept that these costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
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.