CAM/38UE/LIS/2023/0004 — service charge decision
In CAM/38UE/LIS/2023/0004, decided 21 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 9 Sweetbriar, Marcham, Abingdon OX13 6PD and reached a mixed result: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 9 Sweetbriar, Marcham, Abingdon OX13 6PD
Decision date: 21 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £132.48 | £0 | conceded | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £268.23 | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
| Major works (2021-22) | — | £4,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £296.34 | £296.34 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The costs of the repair to the downpipe at two properties … was conceded by the Respondents and the sum of £132.48 is no longer claimed by the Respondent in respect of this service charge item.”
“The fire alarm testing has been resolved and the Respondents have agreed to make a refund of £268.23 in respect of this matter.”
“It is also noted from the OCL invoice that the costs had been reduced at £3,750 plus VAT. We find that sum is reasonable and is payable.”
“we accept that the sum of £296.34 does represent, on the evidence available to us, the pro rata costs of the monitoring system and it is therefore fair and reasonable and is payable by the Applicant.”
“the costs do not appear on the face of them to be unreasonable and are therefore payable.”
“the Respondents could have made life much easier for themselves if they had produced invoices that they were asked to do as well as any other documentation, in this case for example, the monitoring contract.”
“we do agree with Mrs Siebert that the lack of documentation provided by the Respondents has not helped her cause.”
“The problems in this case have been largely brought about as a result of the Respondents not engaging with Mrs Seibert and her colleagues on the Association and not really engaging in these proceedings.”
“It appeared from the submissions made that the bundle had been correctly sent by Mrs Seibert to the Respondents, but they had not dealt with it appropriately. It was accepted that they could have prepared for the matter in a better way and sought legal advice far earlier than they did.”
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.