CAM/33UB/LSC/2025/0692 — service charge decision
In CAM/33UB/LSC/2025/0692, decided 17 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Various flats in The Shirehall, Swaffham and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various flats in The Shirehall, Swaffham
Decision date: 17 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: LRPM Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-2024) | £1,258 | £1,132.50 | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022) | £300 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2022-2024) | £936 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £1,751.36 | £1,751.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £2,710.34 | £2,710.34 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £5,364.01 | £5,364.01 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £594 | £594 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £720 | £720 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | £880 | £880 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £980 | £980 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £1,600 | £1,600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024) | £4,324.80 | £3,243.60 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £88.36 | — | conceded | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £1,807.20 | — | conceded | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £1,008 | — | conceded | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £351.40 | — | conceded | — |
| Major works (2023) | £8,700 | — | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £2,312.52 | — | conceded | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | £1,000 | £0 | conceded | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the testing did take place, but we accept the Applicants' evidence that it was not as comprehensive as it should have been; and there was a period when the residents took it over themselves. Doing the best we can, we consider there should be a modest deduction of 10%”
“there is insufficient evidence from the Respondent to find this cost was reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount. There is no report, no invoice and insufficient explanation from the Respondents.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied, as a result, that the cleaning was reasonable in standard. We disallow the sum in full.”
“the Respondents' representations are to be preferred to the Applicants. Insurance was reasonably incurred. As for amount, the undervaluation did not result in an unreasonable, excessive premium.”
“the Respondents' representations are to be preferred to the Applicants. Insurance was reasonably incurred. As for amount, the undervaluation did not result in an unreasonable, excessive premium.”
“the Applicants' quotation was not like-for like, and we are not satisfied that the cost was unreasonable. The question is not whether the expenditure for any particular service charge item was necessarily the cheapest available, but whether the charge that was made was reasonably incurred”
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.