CAM/42UG/LBC/2024/0018 & others — service charge decision
In CAM/42UG/LBC/2024/0018 & others, decided 5 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 34 Beach Station Road, Felixstowe, IP11 2EY and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 34 Beach Station Road, Felixstowe, IP11 2EY
Decision date: 5 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £197.50 | £197.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £48.15 | £48.15 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023) | £2,748.90 | £2,748.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £96.31 | £96.31 | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £485 | £485 | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £1,725 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Items 1 and 2 – the roof condition survey in the sum of £197.50 and the replacement downpipe, hopper and fitting in the sum of £48.15 were demanded on 05 September 2023”
“the replacement downpipe, hopper and fitting in the sum of £48.15 were demanded on 05 September 2023 and became due on 12 September 2023”
“Item 5 – the section 20 works in the sum of £2,748.90 was demanded on 04 October 2023 and became due on 11 October 2023”
“It was not disputed that the Applicant had incurred £96.31 on internal plumbing repairs to the Respondent's property… in a reasonable attempt to stop a leak from her bathroom in 2023 (item 3)”
“the Applicant had incurred a further £485 on repairing internal damage, to their bathroom ceiling… caused by the leak (item 4)”
“Item 8, which sought £1,725 towards the Applicant's legal costs, had not been satisfactorily addressed by either party… no invoices… or other information was provided.”
“the Applicant/Mr Taylor have taken a very reserved approach, requiring ever more conditions/proposals before they will consider giving consent, and making no active proposals themselves… While we will assume this was not deliberate (it appears part of the general breakdown in the relationship between the parties) the effect has been to make it very difficult (if not impossible) for the Respondent to comply.”
“This connection had not been disclosed in Mr Campbell's written report and only came to light following direct questioning by the Respondent and the tribunal”
“The tribunal heard oral evidence from Mr Campbell which it ultimately found to be of limited assistance.”
“the Respondent had otherwise generally failed to comply with the case management directions”
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.