CAM/26UB/LSC/2020/0002 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UB/LSC/2020/0002, decided 28 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, Millennium Court, Flamstead End Road, Cheshunt, Herts and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, Millennium Court, Flamstead End Road, Cheshunt, Herts
Decision date: 28 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Symon Smith & Partners Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2019) | £4,587 | £4,128.30 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Management fees (2020) | £4,845.60 | £4,128.30 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £2,762 | £2,762 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | £2,900 | £2,900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £6,847 | £6,847 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £880 | £480 | Reduced | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal determines the management fees for both 2019 and 2020 should be 90% of £4587 inc VAT, i.e £4128.30”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that an RPI increase for 2020 is justified on the evidence before us. In particular no contract has been disclosed, and the mathematics have not been justified by the First Respondent.”
“The Tribunal prefers the Respondent's submissions that the works were reasonably incurred.”
“pages 98 to 110 in the supplemental bundle contained a number of invoices which did add up to the figure claimed for 2019”
“The Tribunal accepts Mr Vakalis' explanation of the methodology of reaching these estimated figures, being as they are the result of an audit trail exercise.”
“Mr Vakalis accepted on behalf of the First Respondent that the additional £400 should properly be removed from the budget.”
“the Tribunal is concerned about the lack of oversight in relation to cleaning, gardening and repairs. Further, the Managing Agents have, in the Tribunal's determination, been late in addressing the long-standing issues with the electric gates.”
“Mr Vakalis indicated that they did nothing as regards the cleaning, but did ask for pictures for matters such as hedge trimming. They did not undertake spot checks. They relied on complaints being made.”
“The Tribunal is concerned generally that management fees have escalated since 2016 (£3000) to date, without obvious justification.”
“Mr Vakalis, in response to Tribunal questions as to whether replacement of the gate had been considered, rather than constant repair, admitted that the agents had not yet investigated this in any detail.”
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.