CAM/22UG/LSC/2025/0660 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UG/LSC/2025/0660, decided 30 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Stopes House/Arch House, Eaglegate, East Hill, Colchester and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Stopes House/Arch House, Eaglegate, East Hill, Colchester
Decision date: 30 October 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lifts (2024-25) | £13,691.91 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary, Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2024-25) | £8,190 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2024-25) | £3,589.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2024-25) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“I determine summarily that the relevant service charges are not payable. If more detail is needed, I determine that they are not payable by reason of section 19 of the 1985 Act, aside from any other grounds.”
“If and to the extent the demand is for service charges towards fees paid to or claimed by the lift consultants or the managing agents, in the circumstances noted above those costs were not reasonably incurred.”
“If and to the extent the demand is for service charges towards fees paid to or claimed by the lift consultants or the managing agents, in the circumstances noted above those costs were not reasonably incurred.”
“I determine summarily that no administration charges are payable for non-payment of those service charges.”
“they appear to have used pre-action correspondence seeking to extract substantial unreasonable sums from leaseholders at a time when the right to manage claim was well advanced and had already been with the tribunal for several months.”
“They responded late, making no application for an extension of time and giving no reasons. They have failed to identify the relevant service charge and administration charge provisions in the leases.”
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.