CAM/26UD/LSC/2023/0065 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UD/LSC/2023/0065, decided 10 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Hamels Mansion, Hamels Lane, Hamels Park, Knights Hill, Buntingford, Hertfordshire SG9 9NF and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Hamels Mansion, Hamels Lane, Hamels Park, Knights Hill, Buntingford, Hertfordshire SG9 9NF
Decision date: 10 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hamels Mansion Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2021-02-20 to 2022-03-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2022-03-24 to 2023-03-01) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2023-03-01 to 2024-03-01) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 21B summary of rights, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2024-03-01 to 2024-12-01) | — | £859.07 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2022) | £4,220 | £2,810 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2023) | £2,340 | £2,300 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2021) | £4,184 | £4,184 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023) | £4,696 | £4,696 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £953.40 | £953.40 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent concedes that nothing is payable because s.21B was not complied with and that s.20B precludes the costs being re-demanded. The Tribunal accordingly determines that £0 is payable in respect of this item.”
“The Respondent concedes that nothing is payable because s.21B was not complied with and that s.20B precludes the costs being re-demanded. The Tribunal accordingly determines that £0 is payable in respect of this item.”
“The Respondent concedes that nothing is payable because s.21B was not complied with and that s.20B precludes the costs being re-demanded. The Tribunal accordingly determines that £0 is payable in respect of this item.”
“the parties had agreed (without any concession of principle by the Respondents) that a figure of £5,000 was to be applied towards the costs of fuel oil from the service charge… the following figures were agreed as payable in respect of this item: Villiers: £204.99 Shepherd: £201.11 Crofton: £452.97”
“the Tribunal finds the invoices it has the best evidence of what costs were incurred and accordingly determines: That the payable cleaning and window cleaning costs for 2022 are £2810”
“That the payable cleaning and window cleaning costs for 2023 are £2,300”
“the criticism made of the report seems to be mistaken – the 86% figure the Applicants refer to is the identified efficiency of the boiler from their preferred source, the service company – the figure CLPM assumed for calculation purposes was actually a little higher than the service figure at 88.2% (which was noted to be the maximum), the 60-80% estimate refers to the efficiency of delivery of heat to the Flats not the boiler itself.”
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.