CAM/00MX/LSC/2025/0685 — service charge decision
In CAM/00MX/LSC/2025/0685, decided 1 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 5, Waterford Gate, Pine Street, Aylesbury and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5, Waterford Gate, Pine Street, Aylesbury
Decision date: 1 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: P&R Management Services (UK) Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2023) | £42 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Demand formally invalid |
| Administration charges (2024) | £42 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £357 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2024) | £395 | £395 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £470 | £470 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024) | £316 | £316 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“In the absence of such a certificate, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the balancing charge of £150 is payable.”
“the Tribunal finds that the administration fees applied on 17 August 2023 and 5 February 2024, each in the sum of £42 are not payable.”
“the Tribunal finds that the administration fees applied on 17 August 2023 and 5 February 2024, each in the sum of £42 are not payable.”
“The Referral/Legal Fee of £357 is likewise not recoverable.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that the estimated figure of £37,500 was reasonable, given the actual meter readings the Applicant replied on to set the amount and the volatility of energy prices in late 2023.”
“The Tribunal finds that the budgeted sum of £470 was reasonable. It also notes the Applicant's evidence that the total cost of the project was £36,913.20, resulting in an actual contribution of £388.56 by the Respondents.”
“There was no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that forfeiture was contemplated at the time these administration charges of Legal Fees were imposed (17 August 2023, 5 February 2024 and 23 May 2024).”
“the Applicant is the managing company not the landlord and therefore would not be able to instigate forfeiture proceedings.”
“the Tribunal has been provided with no explanation as to how the sum of £35 plus VAT (totalling £42) was reasonably incurred. Although the charge was applied to the Respondents' account for 'missing payments', no details have been given of any work undertaken to justify it. Likewise, no evidence has been produced to substantiate the legal work said to support the separate fee of £357.”
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.