CAM/26UG/LIS/2024/0010 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UG/LIS/2024/0010, decided 22 August 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, Yule House, Redland Way, Bricket Wood, St Albans and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, Yule House, Redland Way, Bricket Wood, St Albans
Decision date: 22 August 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Gateway Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021) | £184.07 | £3.45 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £21.15 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022) | £188.66 | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2022) | £720 | £144 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2022) | £1,569 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £80 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Administration charges (2022) | £660 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | £720 | £720 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £264.43 | £264.43 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £252 | £252 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £392.35 | £392.35 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £290.37 | £290.37 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“for 2021, a service charge of £3.45 was payable by the Applicant”
“£21.15 was payable (£588 + £13 + £864 + £1,475 = £2,940; £2,940/139 = £21.15)”
“any balancing charge is only due 21 days after receipt of the accountant's certificate specifying it is due. As that certificate has never been provided, the Applicant is under no obligation to pay the balancing charge of £188.66”
“a charge of £200 plus VAT for 5 hours' work to clean 6 windows was manifestly excessive and unreasonable... Only £48 per visit (£144 total) is to be considered a relevant cost”
“The Respondent conceded this issue prior to the hearing... None of the account management fee of £1,569 that forms part of the Estate service charge is payable by the Applicant.”
“The Respondent conceded this issue prior to the hearing... None of the bank charges of £80 that forms part of the Estate service charge is payable by the Applicant.”
“it is a clear breach of the Lease for the Respondent not to have provided any accounts for the 2021 Service Charge Year, whatever its end date, be that 31 December 2021 (as the Tribunal determined it was), 28 February or 31 March 2022.”
“Gateway's rather surprising submission on these issues, in light of its allegedly significant engagement with the Respondent since 2019, including the preparation of its accounts, was that it was not managing agent at the time so has no further information about any income or expenditure prior to 1 March 2022.”
“The Respondent has provided no clarity or transparency on these issues.”
“Agreeing a fixed fee of £588 for administration costs when the work required is minimal is not reasonable. The directors of the Respondent at the time were both solicitors and they had incorporated the company. They would or should have been aware of the minimal work required and able to perform the task without instructing a consultant.”
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.