CAM/26UK/LSC/2024/032 — service charge decision
In CAM/26UK/LSC/2024/032, decided 25 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 7, 8 Oxhey Road, Watford, Hertfordshire and found largely for the leaseholder: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 7, 8 Oxhey Road, Watford, Hertfordshire
Decision date: 25 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Red Rock Estate and Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2022) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2023) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2023) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2023) | £240 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2024) | £90 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2025) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the administration charges demanded of the Applicants are not payable under the Applicants' lease”
“the administration charges demanded of the Applicants are not payable under the Applicants' lease”
“the administration charges demanded of the Applicants are not payable under the Applicants' lease”
“the administration charges demanded of the Applicants are not payable under the Applicants' lease”
“the administration charges demanded of the Applicants are not payable under the Applicants' lease”
“the administration charges demanded of the Applicants are not payable under the Applicants' lease”
“We found Mr Culver's evidence on this point unsatisfactory. Though the Respondent may have been entitled to pursue the developer for the cost of any repair work required to the roof, or may have been able to obtain compensation under the terms of an insurance policy, this does not in our judgment justify the Respondent's failure to take steps to resolve the issue for over two years, still less its insistence that it was for the Applicants to resolve the issues and/or that it was not obliged to carry out any services at the property as the Applicants had withheld their service charges.”
“Nor was it acceptable in our view for the Respondent to leave the Applicants to deal with persistent leaks into their flat for several years without an adequate plan to resolve the problem.”
“the Respondent appears, on the evidence of Mr Calver, to have spent the years between 2022 (when the issue with the roof was first identified) to early 2025 (when certain repair works were carried out) attempting to avoid its obligations to carry out repairs and to blame others, including the Applicants themselves, for the delay in resolving the leak into the Applicants' flat.”
“the purpose of the Respondent in sending repeated letters and complying with credit control processes is in our view wholly unclear.”
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.