CAM/26UK/LSC/2023/0005 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UK/LSC/2023/0005, decided 28 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at Sutton Court, 120 Sutton Road, Watford WD17 2QQ and reached a mixed result: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Sutton Court, 120 Sutton Road, Watford WD17 2QQ
Decision date: 28 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Red Rock Estate & Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2021) | £330 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £436 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £576 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £576 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2022) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2022) | £360 | £360 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | £210 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £302.40 | £224.40 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2022) | £1,296 | £324 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2022) | £2,062.50 | £1,286.42 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £43.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £64.80 | £64.80 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“there is nothing within the bundle to show how the figures have been calculated for the property”
“there is no information within the bundle to support the incurrence of £330 for 2021”
“Mr Calver accepted that these fees are unsubstantiated”
“In the absence of any supporting information, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the 2020 fees were reasonably incurred or reasonable.”
“it does not specify to which property or properties it relates ... no details are provided on how the calculation was made in this case”
“There is no explanation of the apportionment and why it differs so much from the year before. Again, the property is not identified.”
“Mr Calver acknowledged that there is no apparent reason for international fees to have been incurred for this property.”
“the Tribunal does not doubt that the Respondent incurred charges on loss assessors, but it could not show that any of those charges related to this property.”
“the Respondent's advocate accepted that clause 6 is not relevant to the question of reasonableness. Despite this acknowledgement and there being no explanation as to why £300 should not be credited, no admission was made.”
“No dates are given on the invoice and Mr Calver was unable to explain why the sum was charged and how it related to the other invoices.”
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.