CAM/11UF/LSC/2021/0050 — service charge decision
In CAM/11UF/LSC/2021/0050, decided 16 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 27, Wirethorn Furlong, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 27, Wirethorn Furlong, Haddenham, Buckinghamshire
Decision date: 16 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-22) | £416.64 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2021-22) | £491.52 | £368.68 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £164.28 | £164.28 | Withdrawn | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £900 | £800 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent was simply unable to provide justification as to (a) whether this was a cost reasonably incurred and (b) whether the monthly sum of £34.72 was reasonable in amount.”
“the Respondent could not explain the rate/hours for this year. Accordingly, the Tribunal limits the Respondent to the figure which it can explain (£2212.08 p.a. for 6 flats, or £368.68 p.a. per flat).”
“Mr Burton, to his credit, informed the Tribunal he was not going to pursue this item in the light of the explanation given.”
“the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant's submissions that the estimated amount should be capped at £800, based on the previous year's actual figure plus an increase just short of 5%, to represent inflation of costs and materials.”
“The Respondent was simply unable to provide justification as to (a) whether this was a cost reasonably incurred and (b) whether the monthly sum of £34.72 was reasonable in amount.”
“Nor was the Respondent able to provide any evidence as to how the sum was calculated, or of any benchmarking exercise. The written case was this figure was a "starter figure". There was no evidence how the sum had in fact been reached.”
“Catalyst Housing had taken on and applied a template standard to the site, whereas (as the Applicant had stated) this a high-class flat in a high-class estate according to the terms of the Lease.”
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.