CAM/22UB/LSC/2023/0040 & others — service charge decision
In CAM/22UB/LSC/2023/0040 & others, decided 21 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 22 disputed service charge items at 3 & 6 Hawkley House, 24-26 Chapel Street, Billericay, Essex CM12 9LU and reached a mixed result: 15 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 & 6 Hawkley House, 24-26 Chapel Street, Billericay, Essex CM12 9LU
Decision date: 21 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | £511.76 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £817.76 | £817.76 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £537.69 | £179.23 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £550.49 | £183.50 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £117.36 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £120.16 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £68.35 | £68.35 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £69.98 | £69.98 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £179.50 | £179.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £183.78 | £183.78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | £91.41 | £27.75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | £93.59 | £28.42 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-23) | £230.13 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-23) | £235.62 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £144.98 | £115.99 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £148.44 | £118.75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £184.02 | £92.01 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £188.41 | £94.21 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £691.92 | £686.17 | Reduced | Undisclosed insurance commission |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | — | £702.51 | Reduced | Undisclosed insurance commission |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The sum of £3,976.40 was disallowed by the Tribunal in its decision of 18 May 2022. There is no reason for this Tribunal to come to a contrary view, particularly as there is no evidence at all in defence of the amount.”
“The lease contains provision for an overspend to be recovered (Schedule 7, paragraph 2.1.1). In light of the Second Applicant's acknowledgment, the Tribunal finds that the sum of £817.76 is recoverable to the extent that it relates to service charges.”
“From the evidence that the Tribunal has seen and heard, the internal decoration works that were undertaken were of poor quality. In the opinion of the Tribunal the service charge is not reasonable for those works and it should be reduced to one-third.”
“The Tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of the internal decoration is £1,557.60 before apportionment, amounting to £183.50 for Flat 3 and £179.23 for Flat 6.”
“No justification is provided for passing on charges to the tenants for the cost of seemingly making good works that have not been undertaken to a reasonable standard. The service charge is not reasonable and is disallowed in full.”
“No justification is provided for passing on charges to the tenants for the cost of seemingly making good works that have not been undertaken to a reasonable standard. The service charge is not reasonable and is disallowed in full.”
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.