CAM/00MG/LSC/2025/0673 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MG/LSC/2025/0673, decided 1 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Wharf View, 10 Park Street, Milton Keynes and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Wharf View, 10 Park Street, Milton Keynes
Decision date: 1 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Campbell Wharf Management Company Limited (managed by Broadoak Management Limited).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023) | £24,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024) | £5,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we find that the communal electricity charges for the service charge years in question are recoverable under the terms of the Lease and are reasonable.”
“we find that the communal electricity charges for the service charge years in question are recoverable under the terms of the Lease and are reasonable.”
“We accept the Respondents' explanation of the higher than usual charges in 2023, which is that an unusually large catch up bill was received from the supplier in that service charge year.”
“we find that the communal electricity charges for the service charge years in question are recoverable under the terms of the Lease and are reasonable.”
“There was no particular challenge to any item in the 2025 budget as being an unreasonable estimate of the Respondents' expenditure for the 2025 service charge year.”
“Mr Ozcelebi's conduct throughout the hearing tended to undermine rather than advance the efficient management of the hearing. At the start of the day, the tribunal set some ground rules for the hearing and the parties were both asked not to interrupt each other. The tribunal explained the process by which each party would have the opportunity to set out their case and to challenge the case advanced by the other party. Despite this, Mr Ozcelebi persisted in talking over others and interrupting the Respondent's representative and the panel members. He continued with this behaviour despite a great many requests that he should stop. His actions substantially contributed to the length of the hearing and impeded the efficient resolution of the dispute between the parties.”
“The Applicants did not comply with this direction. Instead, on or around 27 February 2026 they prepared a new scott schedule in which they raised new points that had not been included in the original schedule and which substantially added to the issues in dispute.”
“many of the arguments raised by the Applicants amounted to no more than putting the Respondents to proof about the costs incurred. We do not consider it just and equitable for the Respondents to be deprived of their contractual right to recover legal costs through the service charge when those costs have been incurred in responding to an application in which they have been wholly successful.”
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.