CAM/33UD/LSC/2023/0033 — service charge decision
In CAM/33UD/LSC/2023/0033, decided 8 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 5, 43 King Street, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 5, 43 King Street, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
Decision date: 8 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2022/23) | £350 | £262.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022/23) | £73.67 | — | conceded | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023/24) | £86.93 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023/24) | £350 | £262.50 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023/24) | £85.01 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“we find that it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the management charge claimed by 25% to £262.50”
“After it emerged in the course of the hearing that Applicant had deducted (after making his initial claim) the costs of two cleaning visits at a cost of £110.00 and not charged in respect of any electricity consumption during the period, it became apparent that the only sum in issue was the management charge.”
“The Respondent confirmed in respect of these costs that neither the insurance premium nor the charges in respect of bills and maintenance were challenged.”
“we find that it is appropriate to reduce the amount of the management charge claimed by 25% to £262.50”
“The Respondent confirmed in respect of these costs that neither the insurance premium nor the charges in respect of bills and maintenance were challenged.”
“The Applicant's lack of engagement is also evident in the impasse reached over the provision of accounts certified by an accountant which lies at the root of the Respondent's refusal to pay. The Applicant's approach to this was both intransigent as well as being wrong in law.”
“as the Applicant himself acknowledged in his evidence, he had done the bare minimum because the Respondent had refused to pay his service charge.”
“That misguided approach and the failure to provide anything but the most basic services which flowed from it were significant failures of management”
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.