CAM/26UC/LSC/2023/0021 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UC/LSC/2023/0021, decided 27 August 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at 26, 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40 Bridge Street, Hemel Hempstead and found largely for the leaseholder: 13 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 26, 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40 Bridge Street, Hemel Hempstead
Decision date: 27 August 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Westcolt Surveyors.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020-21) | £2,800 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £3,720 | £0 | conceded | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Major works (2021-22) | £96,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work, Works not necessary, Apportionment error |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | £12,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £3,587 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £648 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £2,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £2,000 | £125 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £2,800 | £175 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £4,360 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | £1,600 | £0 | Withdrawn | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2022-23) | — | £175 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“there is no evidence to support the Applicant's claim that Westcolt were carrying out their obligations under the lease in 2020/21”
“the Applicant has conceded that since the insurance costs were incurred by them more than 18 months before the demand, they are not payable by virtue of section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985”
“the tribunal determines that nothing is payable by the leaseholders in respect of the resurfacing works. The Applicant has failed to meet their evidential burden that the works undertaken were required or to establish the actual or reasonable cost.”
“the tribunal determines that nothing is payable by the leaseholders in respect of professional fees. Again, the Applicant has failed to satisfy their evidential burden that Westcolt provided any services to justify professional fees for the resurfacing work.”
“the tribunal determines that nothing is payable by the leaseholders in respect of this invoice. Given the considerable doubts about the documentation provided by ESL, the tribunal does not accept that the invoice is genuine.”
“the Applicant's title did not include either staircase. That means that Zas Ventures were not the 'responsible person' under the Fire Safety Order in respect of either staircase.”
“In general, the tribunal found the Applicant's evidence unsatisfactory. Both witnesses were vague and evasive, each blaming the other for the issues with the works. The documentary evidence was similarly unsatisfactory, in particular as to the actual works done, the identity of the contractors and the actual cost.”
“The letter from ESL explaining why it was (re)created in 2024 is not credible.”
“The Applicant's lack of success in these proceedings is due to their failure (and that of their chosen agent) to properly read the leases and consider respective liabilities for the works given the layout of the property, as well as their failure to provide sufficient evidence to support the amounts claimed.”
“The claim for £12,000 for allegedly managing the resurfacing works was particularly cynical, given the total failure to provide any evidence at all in support of that claim – even the correct identity of the contractor (wrongly identified by Mr Ali in the dispensation proceedings shortly after the works had completed).”
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.