Decision summary

CAM/12UB/LDC/2021/0018 — service charge decision

In CAM/12UB/LDC/2021/0018, decided 24 October 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 117-131 (Odds) The Cherry Building and 133-171 (Odds), Great East Court, Addenbrookes Road, Cambridge and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 117-131 (Odds) The Cherry Building and 133-171 (Odds), Great East Court, Addenbrookes Road, Cambridge
Decision date: 24 October 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Premier Estates (formerly Flaxfields Ltd; earlier APT Property Management).

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Repairs & maintenance (2021)£13,511.95ReducedNo Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022)£26,622.96£26,622.96Allowed in full
Other charges (2021-2022)£13,351.30£13,351.30Allowed in full
Major works (2021)£13,511.95ReducedNo Section 20 consultation
Major works (2021-22)£26,622.96£26,622.96Allowed in full
Other charges (2021-22)£13,351.30£13,351.30Allowed in full
Major worksDisallowed entirelyNo Section 20 consultation
Repairs & maintenanceAllowed in full

Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.

Key passages (verbatim)

“it is not reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in respect of the cost of replacing heat exchangers to the boilers and therefore the cost is limited to £250.00 per flat”
On repairs & maintenance
“The Tribunal determines that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in relation to qualifying works … in respect of the cost of the Additional Works.”
On repairs & maintenance
“Commissioning costs of temporary plant room & filtration system - Quotation 7857 dated 12th December 2021 of £13,351.30”
On other charges
“the cost is limited to £250.00 per flat. The Tribunal determines that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in relation to the Further works in respect of the cost of the replacement of the pipework and valves.”
On major works
“The Tribunal determines that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements in relation to qualifying works … in respect of the cost of the Additional Works.”
On major works
“a plant room would have been required no matter what time of year the work was done. The Respondents questioned whether the plant room was necessary … PHP said it was and in the absence of evidence to the contrary the Applicant was entitled to accept that advice.”
On other charges
“The Tribunal could not see why Flaxfields and PHP did not share this information with the Leaseholders. Mr Coles's letter to the Leaseholders was sparse in comparison. PHP's email of 23rd July gave some idea of costs but this was not shared with the Leaseholders despite Mr Coles saying it would be as soon as it was known. Mr Coles's letter also referred to replacing the boilers whereas in fact a decision was made unilaterally by the Applicant or its managing agent, without consultation with the Leaseholders, to replace the heat exchangers. This was against the advice of PHP which Mr Coles said the Applicant would rely on.”
Of Flaxfields Ltd (managing agent) / Applicant
“The managing agents in this case appear to take the view that as little information as possible about Qualifying Works is to be provided to the Leaseholders until the work is done. The Tribunal were of the opinion that this approach was likely to lead to disputes between a landlord and tenant.”
Of Managing agents (Flaxfields / Premier Estates)
“the Tribunal is critical of the failure by the manging agents to share with the Leaseholders key information with regard to both the Further and Additional Works. This information if shared and the consultation if undertaken would probably have avoided these proceedings.”
Of Managing agents
“He went against PHP's advice and did not keep the Leaseholders informed.”
Of Flaxfields Ltd

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.