Decision summary

CAM/22UQ/LVL/2022/0002 & others — service charge decision

In CAM/22UQ/LVL/2022/0002 & others, decided 25 October 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 39 Manor Road, Stansted, Essex CM24 8NL and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 39 Manor Road, Stansted, Essex CM24 8NL
Decision date: 25 October 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Uttlesford District Council.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2020-21)£528.28£0Disallowed entirelyOther grounds
Repairs & maintenance (2018-19)£15£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Repairs & maintenance (2019-20)£15£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Repairs & maintenance (2020-21)£15£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Repairs & maintenance (2021-22)£15£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Repairs & maintenance (2022-23)£15£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Management fees (2022-23)£239.73£190ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Management fees (2018-19)£141.28£141.28Allowed in full
Buildings insuranceAllowed in full

Key passages (verbatim)

“the sum of £528.28 is no longer claimed by the Respondent and should therefore be removed as an adjustment as shown on the estimated management service charges for the year 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2021”
On other charges
“In the absence of these accounts with no indication as to what the sum was actually spent on, we disallow the sum of £15 for the maintenance and repair for each of the years in question.”
On repairs & maintenance
“In the absence of these accounts with no indication as to what the sum was actually spent on, we disallow the sum of £15 for the maintenance and repair for each of the years in question.”
On repairs & maintenance
“In the absence of these accounts with no indication as to what the sum was actually spent on, we disallow the sum of £15 for the maintenance and repair for each of the years in question.”
On repairs & maintenance
“In the absence of these accounts with no indication as to what the sum was actually spent on, we disallow the sum of £15 for the maintenance and repair for each of the years in question.”
On repairs & maintenance
“In the absence of these accounts with no indication as to what the sum was actually spent on, we disallow the sum of £15 for the maintenance and repair for each of the years in question.”
On repairs & maintenance
“To then seek to recover those monies from Mr Bowers shows some spite on the part of the Council.”
Of Uttlesford District Council
“It was suggested by Mr Holt that they had not thought that they would be necessary but with respect to the Council they should have known that this was a claim about service charges and the accounts should have been produced so that we would have known exactly what sums were being claimed for the maintenance and repair instead of the generic amount of £15.”
Of Uttlesford District Council
“It was disappointing from our point of view that these accounts had not been provided.”
Of Uttlesford District Council

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.