CAM/22UL/LSC/2020/0046 — service charge decision
In CAM/22UL/LSC/2020/0046, decided 17 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 72, 72A, 80, 80A, 82 and 82A Alexandra Road, Rochford and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 72, 72A, 80, 80A, 82 and 82A Alexandra Road, Rochford
Decision date: 17 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Gateway Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-2020) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2018-2020) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2018-2020) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-2020) | — | — | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2018-2020) | — | £200 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“A number of items on the schedule had been conceded by the Respondent in an effort to narrow down the issues. These included the out of hours charges, bank charges and postage costs.”
“A number of items on the schedule had been conceded by the Respondent in an effort to narrow down the issues. These included the out of hours charges, bank charges and postage costs.”
“A number of items on the schedule had been conceded by the Respondent in an effort to narrow down the issues. These included the out of hours charges, bank charges and postage costs.”
“the buildings insurance costs are considered reasonable subject to the removal of the duplicate emergency service cover.”
“The Tribunal considers that £200 per unit plus vat is a reasonable amount for the period in question.”
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.