CAM/33UH/LIS/2025/0008 & others — service charge decision
In CAM/33UH/LIS/2025/0008 & others, decided 11 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at The Old Laundry, 23 St Georges, Wicklewood, Wymondham and found largely for the landlord: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: The Old Laundry, 23 St Georges, Wicklewood, Wymondham
Decision date: 11 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2023) | £19,107 | £19,107 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £6,300 | £6,300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £4,152 | £4,152 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023) | £3,444 | £3,444 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £2,436 | £2,203 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £2,800 | £2,800 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023) | £3,100 | £3,100 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | £8,900 | £8,900 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £1,656 | £1,656 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023) | £13 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £65 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we consider that the estimated cost of £19,107 was reasonable in the circumstances. The actual cost of £8,091 was reasonably incurred and we have granted dispensation, as set out above, in respect of the relevant qualifying long-term agreement.”
“we consider that the estimated cost of £6,300 was reasonable. The actual cost of £5,425 was reasonably incurred and the consultation requirements did not apply to the supply arrangements.”
“We are not satisfied that the consultation requirements applied in relation to the pool maintenance arrangements. The Respondents' contributions are not limited as alleged.”
“we are not satisfied that the consultation requirements applied in relation to the cleaning or the equipment repair arrangements.”
“the Applicant was unable to take us to anything which would exceed the £2,203 calculated by Mr Daly, so we have adopted his figure as the actual cost.”
“We consider that the total estimate of £2,800 was reasonable. We are not satisfied that the consultation requirements applied and we consider the costs of £2,710 were 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.