CAM/22UJ/LSC/2025/0638 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UJ/LSC/2025/0638, decided 29 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, Magnolia House, Wych Elm, Harlow and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, Magnolia House, Wych Elm, Harlow
Decision date: 29 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Zone Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023-24) | £3,604 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £8,062 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2025) | £2,250 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £5,994 | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £43,603 | £240 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2024-25) | £9,728 | £240 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2025) | £21,294 | £240 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Lifts (2023-24) | £30,225 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £16,600 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We do not see why the Applicant should have to pay service charges for an amenity the Respondent has failed to provide. No charges are payable.”
“Not allowed. See paragraph 43 above.”
“Not allowed. See paragraph 43 above.”
“We will allow the Respondent only 50% of the costs of window cleaning.”
“taking into account our knowledge and experience as a Specialist Tribunal we find the amount charged as being too high. We consider a reasonable figure would be £288.00 £240.00 plus VAT per unit.”
“We allow £288.00 £240.00 plus VAT per unit: see paragraph 78 above.”
“We found Mr Otokiti defensive and less credible. As he only visited the Development once every four weeks, he clearly had far less day to day knowledge of what was going on than the Applicant did.”
“The objection is misguided. In any civil case, hearsay evidence is admissible. It is up to us as to what weight we attach to it.”
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.