CAM/22UG/LBC/2023/0013 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UG/LBC/2023/0013, decided 12 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 8 St Edmunds Court, Harwich Road, Colchester and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 8 St Edmunds Court, Harwich Road, Colchester
Decision date: 12 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“it was equally clear that the Property had been underlet in parts, notably in respect of individual rooms, to people who did not form one family. The Respondent also conceded breaches of clauses 3(7) and 4(9) of the Lease had occurred on this basis”
“the Respondent accepted (as did the Tribunal) that there had been a breach of clause 4(8) of the Lease since at least November 2023. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether the works had involved any alteration to the party or principal or load-bearing walls or timbers”
“the Property had been underlet in parts, notably in respect of individual rooms, to people who did not form one family. The Respondent also conceded breaches of clauses 3(7) and 4(9) of the Lease had occurred on this basis”
“the Tribunal was satisfied that the works undertaken were proven to amount to a breach of clause 4(8). However, it had not been proven that they affected the structure of the Building, as interpreted for the purposes of this Lease, such that clause 3(5) had also been breached.”
“the Tribunal had very little good evidence of the extent, duration or cause of any such incident(s) and found the Applicant had been well-advised in the circumstances not to dwell on this alleged breach. The Tribunal was not satisfied it had been proven.”
“It was clearly right to have done so.”
“the Applicant had been well-advised in the circumstances not to dwell on this alleged breach.”
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.