CAM/38UD/LSC/2025/0634 — service charge decision
In CAM/38UD/LSC/2025/0634, decided 13 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, Faringdon Court, Cholsey, Wallingford OX10 9GE; Flat 4, Hermitage Court, Cholsey, Wallingford OX10 9GE; Flats 14 and 15, Hermitage Court, Cholsey, Wallingford OX10 9GE and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, Faringdon Court, Cholsey, Wallingford OX10 9GE; Flat 4, Hermitage Court, Cholsey, Wallingford OX10 9GE; Flats 14 and 15, Hermitage Court, Cholsey, Wallingford OX10 9GE
Decision date: 13 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Cholsey Meadows Management Company Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2025) | £2,836.27 | £2,836.27 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2025) | £2,836.27 | £2,836.27 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2025) | £1,418.13 | £1,418.13 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the demands sent out to the Leaseholders on 3 December 2024 requiring Ms Gibson to pay £2,836.27 for flat 14 and £2,836.27 for flat 15, Mr Day to pay £2,836.27 for flat 4 and Mr Davidson to pay £1,418.13 for flat 3 are properly payable, relating to sums reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“the demands sent out to the Leaseholders on 3 December 2024 requiring Ms Gibson to pay £2,836.27 for flat 14 and £2,836.27 for flat 15, Mr Day to pay £2,836.27 for flat 4 and Mr Davidson to pay £1,418.13 for flat 3 are properly payable”
“Mr Davidson to pay £1,418.13 for flat 3 are properly payable, relating to sums reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“The water is muddied because the Leaseholders are also shareholders of the Management Company; but they are separate legal entities. In our view any complaints relate to corporate governance rather than the consultation process.”
“We cannot accept Mr Grieve's evidence, which is headed 'independent report' but he is not independent as he is Ms Gibson's partner.”
“We considered that there been noncompliance with the Directions. There were statements from two witnesses who were not present and we would not hear live testimony from. The new evidence seemed to widen the case to other leaseholders who were not party to the proceedings.”
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.