CAM/12UE/LSC/2024/0030 — service charge decision
In CAM/12UE/LSC/2024/0030, decided 25 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Abbotsley Country Homes, Drewels Lane, St Neots, Cambridgeshire and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Abbotsley Country Homes, Drewels Lane, St Neots, Cambridgeshire
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £600 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £5,540.45 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £20,081.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | £1,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mr Verdier disputed an ad-hoc demand which had been made in 2023 for £600 for costs of instructing Counsel to deal with the hearing(s) of the injunction applications in December 2022”
“For 2023, the Applicants disputed the £110,809 for legal and professional fees shown in the accounts. £5,540.45 (1/20) had been demanded from each of them.”
“For 2024, the Applicants disputed the £401,632 shown in the accounts for legal and professional fees. £20,081.60 (again, 1/20) had been demanded from each.”
“the budget for this year estimated a further £20,000 for the legal costs of the High Court litigation, and £1,000 had been demanded from each of the Applicants.”
“charges described as 'arrears management fee', 'instruction fee' and 'debt collection fee'… To the extent these relate to non-payment of the legal costs claimed through the service charge, these are not payable”
“We were not satisfied by Mr Walker's argument that the costs were incurred to comply with the Building Regulations 2010.”
“Nor are we satisfied that the costs were incurred to comply with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (or the Housing Act 2004).”
“We were not taken to any wording in the underlease which would have a similar effect (or indeed the relevant certificates, only various demands and the final accounts).”
“No real case was made and we were taken to no evidence that any of the relevant legal costs were incurred in procuring compliance with the underleases.”
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.