CAM/00MX/LSC/2025/0657 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MX/LSC/2025/0657, decided 2 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Apartments 8 and 10 Westhorpe House, Westhorpe Park, Marlow and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartments 8 and 10 Westhorpe House, Westhorpe Park, Marlow
Decision date: 2 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Cleaver Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £53,434 | £53,434 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £10,000 | £10,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | £65,608 | £65,608 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024) | £9,900 | £9,900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2025) | £9,900 | £9,900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“2023 (covering the period 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023): £53,434”
“2024 (covering the period 1 September 2023 to 30 June 2024): £10,000”
“2025 (covering the period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025): £65,608”
“As Alba's fee was not challenged for budget purposes, and this level of fees is in our experience in line with what we would expect for similar sized properties, we cannot see that maintaining the same level of fees for two further service charge years is unreasonable.”
“In the full year budget for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, Cleaver have budgeted for £9,900.”
“Our view is that these do not form part of the Service Costs. The parties both considered these to be re-charged to each flat and therefore not a Service Cost.”
“the strict terms of the leases providing for budgets, actual figures and reconciliations had not been adhered to and there was a lack of transparency over expenditure. The Respondent's paperwork was not orderly nor comprehensive.”
“we must find that, strictly speaking, the sum has not been accounted for.”
“We have found that the leases have not been complied with in that no reconciliation accounts have been provided at all (except 1 July 2024 to 31 December 2024 which we were not provided with a copy of) so as to be certified at all.”
“invoices requiring payment on account of estimated service charges bear the Respondent's name and bank details and therefore payments appear to be being made directly to it. Whilst we cannot decide on this, we consider it recognised practice for there to be a separate designated account.”
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.