CAM/00MG/LSC/2023/0006 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MG/LSC/2023/0006, decided 6 July 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 8 Addenbrookes Road, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire and found largely for the landlord: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 8 Addenbrookes Road, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire
Decision date: 6 July 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Spectrum (Newport Pagnell) Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-2020) | £347.33 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Utilities (2019-2020) | £528.02 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds, Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2021-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2021-2023) | £4,609.01 | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges | £70 | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Key passages (verbatim)
“It appears the tribunal would not have jurisdiction (legal power) to make any determination in relation to these matters because they were all paid by the previous leaseholder or formed part of the balancing charge for which default Judgment was entered.”
“Even if the tribunal does have jurisdiction in relation to any of these matters, the Applicant has not complied with the directions requiring him to quantify how much of this is said to be reasonable/unreasonable and has produced nothing to indicate a case with any reasonable prospect of success.”
“He asserts that low pressure will have meant that residents used more gas to heat their flats, but gives no evidence or quantification of this.”
“He provides no evidence of any of these matters. Again, he has failed to comply with the directions requiring him to identify any service charge costs said not to be reasonable or payable.”
“Despite the directions, he does not identify the service charge year or source of this disputed charge. In view of the explanations already given and failures to comply with directions, it is not appropriate to seek to explore this further in these proceedings.”
“The Applicant did not comply with this direction. He produced only an e-mail on 18 May 2023 which was not copied to the Respondent.”
“Since the Applicant has in substance failed to comply with the directions, these proceedings may already have been struck out automatically.”
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.