CAM/42UE/LSC/2023/0073 & others — service charge decision
In CAM/42UE/LSC/2023/0073 & others, decided 2 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Flat 15, Uvedale Court, Coddenham Rd, Needham Market, IP6 8AX and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 15, Uvedale Court, Coddenham Rd, Needham Market, IP6 8AX
Decision date: 2 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Healthcare Homes Group Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2019) | £1,171.80 | £1,171.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020) | £1,171.80 | £1,171.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | £959 | £959 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2021) | £1,171.80 | £1,171.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022) | £1,171.80 | £1,171.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2023) | £1,171.80 | £1,171.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £959 | £959 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £26,814 | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £582 | £250 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Staffing & concierge (2024) | £1,171.80 | £1,171.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £5,724 | £5,742 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The relevant cost was reasonably incurred. There is no challenge to the amount.”
“The Tribunal repeats its findings as for 2019. The relevant cost was reasonably incurred. There is no challenge to the amount.”
“We therefore determine the cost of £959 was reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.”
“The Tribunal repeats its findings as for 2019. The relevant cost was reasonably incurred. There is no challenge to the amount.”
“The Tribunal repeats its findings as for 2019. The relevant cost was reasonably incurred. There is no challenge to the amount.”
“The Tribunal repeats its findings as for 2019. The relevant cost was reasonably incurred. There is no challenge to the amount.”
“The Respondents did not inform the leaseholders of the increased cost from £19,632 to over £26,800.”
“Respondents' counsel conceded the Applicant and the other leaseholders had not been told about the cost increases, and that she had no instructions as to the particular reasons why. There also was an absence of certified accounts. Management of the block left much to be desired.”
“The Respondents could not explain what the initial issue had been with the guttering, i.e. whether it was a leak or not. They could not explain why the guttering had been readjusted at an angle. They could not say how long the operatives had been on site.”
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.