CAM/26UH/LAC/2025/0008 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UH/LAC/2025/0008, decided 3 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at 55 Four Acres, Stevenage and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 55 Four Acres, Stevenage
Decision date: 3 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2022) | — | £551.62 | Reduced | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicant says that this cost should have been divided with No.53, that is wrong for the reasons given above and the amount demanded is payable in full.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent was not obliged to wait until the roof had fallen into disrepair to replace it… there is no challenge to the price. The sum demanded is payable in full.”
“the Applicant says that this cost should have been divided with No.53, that is wrong for the reasons given above and the amount demanded is payable in full.”
“Gutters/ Downpipes: the Applicant says that this cost should have been divided with No.53, that is wrong for the reasons given above and the amount demanded is payable in full.”
“Chimney works: this is conceded and is payable in full.”
“Roofing sundry works: the Applicant now accepts works were done but says that this cost should have been divided with No.53, that is wrong for the reasons given above and the amount demanded is payable in full.”
“It might be that had the Respondent provided more information it would have succeeded on this point but, within the framework established by the parties respective cases, the Tribunal has to do the best it can with the evidence provided.”
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.