CHI/23UB/LSC/2023/0119 — service charge decision
In CHI/23UB/LSC/2023/0119, decided 20 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flat 18 Cambray Court, Cheltenham GL50 1JX and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 18 Cambray Court, Cheltenham GL50 1JX
Decision date: 20 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: MetroPM (Metropolitan PM Ltd).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021-24) | £1,088,900.88 | £1,088,900.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-24) | £11,040 | £11,040 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-24) | £4,752.94 | £4,752.94 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-24) | £3,420 | £3,420 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-24) | £191,586.04 | £143,803.55 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work, Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2021-24) | £39,478.90 | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2021-24) | £772.80 | £772.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-24) | £1,448.25 | £1,448.25 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-24) | £3,012 | £3,012 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-23) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | 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.”
“the interim repairs by Kudos Structures were £11,040 will reasonably incurred”
“the costs for National Grid of £4,752.94 and building control fee of £3,420”
“the costs for National Grid of £4,752.94 and building control fee of £3,420”
“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.”
“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. For these reasons the tribunal finds that some of the professional fees incurred by the respondent were not reasonably incurred or alternatively the professional work was not carried out to a reasonable standard.”
“The Tribunal notes that time-based charges cover the period from 16 August 2016 to 27 January 2023. During that period a variety of work was carried out. Some was wall monitoring and some related to the river wall reconstruction. Some of this work was unproductive for the reasons given above.”
“The Tribunal further finds that the Clancy fee and DSA fee referred to in the 2020 decision, as extracted above, are both also disallowed, because they represent duplication of costs and were therefore either not reasonably incurred or services not provided to a reasonable standard.”
“although Metro PM made errors in connection with the consultation requirements, which were not therefore complied with fully, this was not a deliberate ploy to frustrate consultation. However, in addition to the document location not being reasonable, at least one lessee was not served with section 20 notices correctly. For these reasons the tribunal finds that the service was not provided to a reasonable standard and that a fee reduction of 20% is necessary.”
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.