CAM/22UC/LIS/2022/0011 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UC/LIS/2022/0011, decided 2 February 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at 38 Randall Close, Witham, Essex, CM8 1FP and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 38 Randall Close, Witham, Essex, CM8 1FP
Decision date: 2 February 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: First Port Property Services.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2017-2022) | £559.60 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Administration charges (2017-2022) | £210 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2017-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2022) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2022) | £2,316 | £0 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2017-2022) | £864.89 | £0 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2017-2022) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent agreed to waive the charge for the major works of £559.60 and additional admin fees of £210. These matters therefore were no longer at issue at the date of the hearing.”
“the Respondent agreed to waive the charge for the major works of £559.60 and additional admin fees of £210.”
“there is no real basis to challenge the cost of the call out charges in relation to the monitoring service and these sums are considered payable and reasonable.”
“the Tribunal finds that there is no real basis for challenging these costs and the costs are considered reasonable and payable.”
“the costs of water and sewage for a relatively large estate is reasonable and payable.”
“These costs were considered in relation to the car park lights and were recoverable under the lease and reasonable.”
“It is regrettable that these sums were wrongly allocated and indeed it may raise questions about other accounting not identified in this case. The Respondents would be well advised to ensure that in future all sums are allocated to the correct head of charge otherwise leaseholders could find themselves on the wrong end of a debt claim which is incorrectly calculated.”
“the Respondents chose to concede the issue of major works at a very late stage indeed on the day before the hearing. Potentially this would have been the principal issue the Tribunal would have had to deal with.”
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.