CHI/23UB/LSC/2023/0118 — service charge decision
In CHI/23UB/LSC/2023/0118, decided 20 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 42 Cambray Court, Cheltenham and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 42 Cambray Court, Cheltenham
Decision date: 20 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: MetroPM.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2017/18-2022/23) | £1,088,900.88 | £1,088,900.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020/21) | £11,040 | £11,040 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2016-2024) | £191,586.14 | £143,803.55 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work, Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2017/18-2022/23) | £39,478.90 | — | Reduced | Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)), No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2017/18-2022/23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal finds that the Walsh Construction and Gloucester Asbestos costs of £1,088,900.88 were reasonably incurred.”
“It also finds that the interim repairs by Kudos Structures of £11,040 were reasonably incurred.”
“the amount found recoverable by the Tribunal is £143,803.55 inclusive of VAT, against the £191,586 sought.”
“the tribunal finds that the service was not provided to a reasonable standard and that a fee reduction of 20% is necessary.”
“The tribunal finds the other professional fees and disbursements in connection with the major works were reasonably incurred and payable, including fees and costs for accounting, Environment Agency, National Grid, and building control.”
“It should have been clear that sheet piling and any other construction methods involving hydraulic piling were unlikely to be viable, because of the vibration caused to nearby sensitive buildings.”
“This misapprehension led to a number of activities and actions which were unproductive and of no benefit to the leaseholders. It also contributed to delay.”
“All this suggests a duplication of services and costs.”
“It would be unreasonable to expect residents to devote either the time or the travelling costs to embark on such a journey.”
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.