CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UF/LSC/2023/0034, decided 9 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at 1, 2, 3 & 4 Whitehouse Court, 37-39 High Street, Barkway and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1, 2, 3 & 4 Whitehouse Court, 37-39 High Street, Barkway
Decision date: 9 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: HML Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £800 | £800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £240 | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | £189 | £68.82 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | £468 | £468 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £870 | £650 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £360 | £360 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £61 | £61 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-24) | £360 | £360 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £480 | £480 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £60 | £30 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | £84 | £84 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £3 | £3 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £1,200 | £600 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The policy is sourced via an independent broker to obtain open market value for money. This process was explained to Pru Nixon in a telephone discussion with the respondent after the January 2025 hearing. As a result, the applicants do not challenge the sum.”
“The sum claimed is £240, being the same as the budgeted sum. It is not challenged.”
“electricity invoices in the sums of £15.62 and £104.56 which to refer and so relate to the respondent's separate adjacent property at 8 High Street have been incorrectly recharged to Whitehouse Court. The actual invoiced electricity cost for Whitehouse Court is £68.82.”
“The respondent has, very fairly, proactively proposed that the apportionment and individual contribution is re-calculated from the current 1/5th (based on Whitehouse Court only) to 1/10th (to include the 4 maisonettes). The applicants agree that proposal. The tribunal endorses this agreement.”
“the tribunal determines that the market would deliver a charge of £50 p/h per worker and that the works could reasonably require 2 workers and would take in the region of 6.5 hours. This results in a sum of £650 which is determined as the sum which is reasonable and payable.”
“The estimated amount demanded was £450. The actual relevant cost claimed is zero.”
“The failure to explain this procedure at an earlier stage is poor management practice. The marked disparity between a budgeted sum of £5,200 for buildings insurance and actual cost of £800 is an example of the poor quality of the management.”
“The lack of adequate and accurate meter recording and resulting billing is poor management. The tribunal notes that the sum budgeted was £700. Again, the marked disparity between the budgeted sum and actual cost (both that claimed and that the actual cost) is an example of the poor quality of the management.”
“The tribunal considers that this is another example of poor management. Fire alarm maintenance should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.”
“The tribunal considers that this is another example of poor management. Emergency lighting maintenance should be planned and cyclical and therefore easily accurately accounted for.”
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.