CAM/00MX/LSC/2025/0632 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MX/LSC/2025/0632, decided 24 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 52 Badger Way, Hazelmere, Bucks and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 52 Badger Way, Hazelmere, Bucks
Decision date: 24 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Peabody Trust.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2023/24) | £423.86 | £209.56 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2024/25) | £565.44 | £431.72 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2025/26) | £611.13 | £466.66 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent has been unable to demonstrate how the buildings insurance premium of £423.86 was calculated to result in a £337.46 deficit… the total sum payable for buildings insurance for the Property for service charge year 2023/24 is £209.56 (being the estimated sum of £86.40 plus £123.16 deficit).”
“We consider it reasonable to take a midway point between the ABI averages supplied by the Applicant and the Respondent's estimated figures… For 2024/25, the midway point between £298 and 565.44 is £431.72.”
“Whereas for 2025/26, the midway point between £321 and £611.13 is £466.06… the Tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of buildings insurance is… £466.66 for 2025/26.”
“Despite these clear Directions, the Respondent did not provide a statement in response with supporting evidence. Nor did the Respondent complete the Scott Schedules, although some invoices were provided and the service charge demands were contained in the bundle.”
“The bundle is unpaginated, it presented some difficulty navigating to the pages under discussion.”
“the Respondent's letter to the Applicant of 27 September 2024 was particularly ambiguous. It refers to the shortfall of £337.46 arising because 'we spent more than we originally asked for maintaining and improving your home'. It was accepted by Mr Fawcett that the Respondent had not maintained or improved the Property, this being the Applicant's responsibility.”
“we noted the months of frustration experienced by the Applicant in attempting to secure information and responses from the Respondent. The evasiveness of the Respondent was apparent from the non-compliance with directions and poor bundle. Had the Respondent engaged with the Applicant then these proceedings may well have been unnecessary.”
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.