CAM/26UD/LSC/2024/0004 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UD/LSC/2024/0004, decided 6 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at 2, 3 and 4 Woodcock Lodge, Epping Green, Hertfordshire SG13 8ND and reached a mixed result: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 2, 3 and 4 Woodcock Lodge, Epping Green, Hertfordshire SG13 8ND
Decision date: 6 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Block Management 22.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £872.82 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Dispensation refused, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £1,059.77 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2021) | £2,374.56 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £2,106.99 | £768 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £3,583.65 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2022) | £2,365.44 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £1,494.85 | £1,494.85 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £290.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £1,124.57 | £1,124.57 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £311.43 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £1,357.72 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the service charge in respect of this item is limited to £250 per relevant leaseholder. This is what the Brettons paid…meaning that Mr King is due a rebate of £622.82.”
“the costs are payable by the Respondent and not as part of the service charge. Nothing is payable by the Brettons or Mr King in relation to these costs and again a rebate is due of the amount paid.”
“nothing is payable in respect of those works as part of the service charge”
“The total cost of £768 is therefore payable in equal shares of £256 by the Respondent, 2 and 3 Woodcock Lodge. Nothing is payable by flat 4.”
“The tribunal again determines that nothing is payable by the leaseholders in respect of the legal costs of the boundary dispute with the owners of the Coach House.”
“The garage and reserve fund do not require further consideration given the decisions made above.”
“Given that the Respondent and her practice have been managing the property for a long time, it is unfortunate that she did not have a full understanding of the leases. In particular, the extent of the demises and the limitation of the service charge provisions. She also did not appear to be aware of the duty to consult and there is no doubt that the unexpected invoices for the driveway and legal costs led to the challenge.”
“It is also unfortunate that despite apparently seeking advice in 2020, the Respondent used the service charge to seek payment for works to the garages and other works which are not payable under the service charge provisions in the leases.”
“By presenting the Applicants with a 'fait accompli', this opportunity to reduce the cost to Woodcock Lodge was lost.”
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.