CAM/26UG/LRM/2023/0019 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UG/LRM/2023/0019, decided 12 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 11, St Margarets Court, 5 Cross Way, Harpenden, AL5 4FN and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 11, St Margarets Court, 5 Cross Way, Harpenden, AL5 4FN
Decision date: 12 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £6,488.43 | £6,438.43 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £1,911.66 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £1,740 | £1,740 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £1,194 | £1,194 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,700 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £900 | £900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023) | £7,052.45 | £750 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £6,379.64 | £6,379.64 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £9,204 | £9,204 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023) | £1,320 | £500 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the amount of £6,438.43 is reasonably incurred for the insurance premium. The cost set out in the service charge accounts for the period ending 25 December 2022 was £6,488.43; however, the premium was for £6,438.43 and that is the amount that Tribunal finds as payable.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that an additional insurance premium of £1,911.66 is payable… it is not possible to see how an additional insurance premium has been charged.”
“The Tribunal finds that the cost of £1,740 for this report was reasonably incurred and notes that an invoice was included within the Bundle at page 45.”
“The Tribunal accepts the position of the Respondent and finds that the preventative maintenance schedule was required and the amount charged for this work was reasonably incurred.”
“The invoice provided by the Respondent at page 47 of the Bundle is unclear… the Tribunal is not satisfied that this invoice is an invoice for an 'annual accountants' certification' which verified service charge accounts.”
“The Tribunal finds that the amount is payable and reasonably incurred. The invoice provided by the Respondent confirmed that an inspection of the trees was undertaken and that a recommendation for work that needed to be completed was given.”
“The invoice provided by the Respondent at page 47 of the Bundle is unclear. It is titled "tax invoice" however the description of the work is stated as: "call out to the above property on 01/03/22 to carry out the Standard Audit Report. Found landlord supply present; please find attached confirmation of meter reading". The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that this invoice is an invoice for an "annual accountants' certification" which verified service charge accounts. On the basis of the information before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this work was completed and, consequently, finds that this amount is not payable.”
“The Respondent was not present and so the Tribunal waited until 10.15am. When the hearing reconvened, the Respondent was still not present.”
“The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Applicant that the RTM company had made several attempts to obtain handover documents but none were provided by the Respondent.”
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.