CAM/00MG/LSC/2024/0607 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MG/LSC/2024/0607, decided 14 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 11 Moonstone House, 304 South Row, Milton Keynes and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 11 Moonstone House, 304 South Row, Milton Keynes
Decision date: 14 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Notting Hill Genesis.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023) | £106.13 | £106.13 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the relevant costs incurred or budgeted by the Second Respondent in the service charge years in dispute are payable under the headlease and under the lease and have been reasonably incurred and are reasonable in amount.”
“the cost of insurance was the main driver of the increase in service charges. The Second Respondent has found it difficult to place insurance because of the fire safety issues on the estate… There was no challenge to the reasonableness of the insurance premiums incurred by the Second Respondent.”
“There was no duplication of costs – the replacement and maintenance works were running alongside each other. This explanation was not challenged and we are satisfied, having carefully considered the contemporaneous correspondence, that there has been no duplication in service charge cost.”
“The First Respondent has not provided any clear explanation about why it allowed these arrears to accrue over four years without contacting the Applicant about them by email.”
“we do not understand (and no explanation was provided) why the First Respondent did not provide copies of its service charge demands to the Applicant before it was ordered to do so in these proceedings.”
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.