CAM/26UD/LSC/2025/0693 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UD/LSC/2025/0693, decided 23 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 5 Queen Alexandra House, 2 Bluecoats Avenue, Hertford, SG14 1PB and found largely for the leaseholder: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 5 Queen Alexandra House, 2 Bluecoats Avenue, Hertford, SG14 1PB
Decision date: 23 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Ashmark Estate Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2024) | £45.38 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Utilities (2024) | £49.02 | £34.85 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2024) | £870 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“there is no evidence of any fire alarm or smoke ventilation maintenance contract for the relevant period, nor records (for example invoices and bank statements) to show that these costs were ever incurred.”
“the other invoice relied upon by the Respondents to justify the balance (the balance being £49.02) of the sum demanded in this period in fact relates to a payment made by the First Respondent on 4 February 2024, which is before the service charge year”
“There is accordingly no adequate evidence upon which we could conclude on balance that these costs were incurred by the Second Respondent in connection with or in contemplation of the enforcement of the terms of the lease”
“the Applicant made numerous requests for these invoices to be disclosed to him before these proceedings were issued, but it was only when ordered by the Tribunal that the First Respondent disclosed the invoices that the Applicant sought, and even then it did so belatedly, following an initial breach of Judge Wyatt's directions.”
“That statement is insufficient in our judgment and lacking in important detail – it is unclear who has incurred these costs, there is no evidence that they have been paid by the landlord or that the landlord is under any liability to pay them and there is no information about what work was done.”
“The sums demanded are on their face extremely high for what ought to be routine account management work for experienced managing agents.”
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.