CAM/26UC/LSC/2024/0612 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UC/LSC/2024/0612, decided 17 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 224B High Street, Berkhamsted, HP4 1AG and reached a mixed result: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 224B High Street, Berkhamsted, HP4 1AG
Decision date: 17 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Praxis Block Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £201.19 | £100.60 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £343.62 | £343.62 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £418.73 | £371.11 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £442.27 | £343.62 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £417.68 | £343.62 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Insurance not market tested |
| Other charges | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“it was not reasonable to have replaced the existing policy in the way the Respondent did. It created an unnecessary cost for the Applicant with no tangible gain.”
“the Tribunal concluded the cost of the new premium was not excessive or unreasonably incurred. It is therefore payable in full.”
“the Tribunal concluded that no insurance valuation was obtained in 2021, no fee relating to it is payable.”
“The error was entirely avoidable and resulted from carelessness. The cost associated with rectifying it was not reasonably incurred.”
“the cost of the 2022 reinstatement valuation report...related to the wrong property. This was an entirely avoidable error. Even if a fee was incurred in relation to it, it was not reasonably incurred.”
“Choosing an insurer whose premiums significantly exceed those of its competitors without a sound explanation is unreasonable, thus the excessive premium has been unreasonably incurred.”
“The Respondent has given no explanation for the increase. The Tribunal concluded the premium was higher due to the Respondent having initially taken out cover based on an entirely erroneous reinstatement value of £1,399,000. That error was entirely avoidable and resulted from carelessness.”
“the cost of the 2022 reinstatement valuation report, it related to the wrong property. This was an entirely avoidable error. Even if a fee was incurred in relation to it, it was not reasonably incurred.”
“If the Respondent had good grounds for continuing with its current insurance arrangements, it has had the opportunity to share them. It has not. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that it had no good grounds for doing so. Choosing an insurer whose premiums significantly exceed those of its competitors without a sound explanation is unreasonable, thus the excessive premium has been unreasonably incurred.”
“The Respondent provided limited assistance during the proceedings, including failing to comply with Tribunal directions.”
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.