CHI/23UB/LIS/2021/0053 — service charge decision
In CHI/23UB/LIS/2021/0053, decided 17 May 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 36 Canberra House, Cheltenham and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 36 Canberra House, Cheltenham
Decision date: 17 May 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-19) | £478.57 | £478.57 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £662.32 | £662.32 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | £772.76 | £772.76 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018) | £4,263.58 | £4,224.39 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mr Peckham raised no specific challenge to this particular demand. The Tribunal determines it is payable in full.”
“Item b. has been paid and the details of the same were not challenged and the Tribunal determines the sums are payable in full.”
“We were satisfied from the Council's evidence that the works had been carried out, it was reasonable to incur the costs of decoration... and they were carried out to a reasonable standard. In light of that, the Tribunal is unable to permit his challenge and allows these charges in full.”
“The Council corrected the sum claimed, in that it had overcharged by £39.19. Accordingly, the Tribunal determines that £4,224.39 is payable in full.”
“The Tribunal was not in a position to properly assess the merits of Mr Peckham's challenges. Although raised in outline in his initial Defence, there was no further detail provided, no photographs, no alternative quotations, or other evidence until he made his oral submissions at the hearing.”
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.