CAM/22UJ/LSC/2023/0055 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UJ/LSC/2023/0055, decided 27 August 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 1-36 Amberry Court, Harlow, Essex and found largely for the landlord: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1-36 Amberry Court, Harlow, Essex
Decision date: 27 August 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Woodward Property Management Company.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £21,401 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023-2024) | £369.84 | — | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The effect of the Respondent accepting a defect with the section 20 process is that no service charge was payable in respect of those planned works.”
“The accounts signed by the directors on 4 February 2025 were an amended set where we could see that the professional fees in question had been reduced to £0.”
“There is a further claim for all properties relating to a 'Y/E deficit' of £369.84. This seems to be a duplication of another entry on the Scott Schedule for the same sum labelled as 'Dispute of Current Service Charge'.”
“The position regarding the filing and service of documents was unsatisfactory in many respects.”
“The Directions had not been properly complied with by the Applicant. The Applicants evidence was only sent to the Respondent on 21 May 2025, being outside of the timescales required. This had a knock-on effect on the Respondent's ability to comply.”
“Those documents produced by the Applicant were not initially in a paginated bundle as directed. There were also documents upside down or otherwise not clearly or conveniently legible. There were many documents which were not of direct assistance to the issues.”
“These were not all in the required format or verified by a statement of truth.”
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.