Decision summary

HAV/23UB/LSC/2025/0601 — service charge decision

In HAV/23UB/LSC/2025/0601, decided 9 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Cambray Court, Rodney Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Cambray Court, Rodney Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Decision date: 9 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Metropolitan PM Limited (trading as Metro PM).

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Major works (2022-2023)£1,344,411.91£1,344,411.91Allowed in full—
Legal & professional costs (2019-2020)£13,854.07£13,854.07Allowed in full—
Major works (2022-2023)£18,646.81£14,917.45ReducedPoor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Major works (2022-2023)£18,452.86£18,452.86Allowed in full—
Other charges (2022-2023)£180£180Allowed in full—

Key passages (verbatim)

“the costs of the Major Works are payable by the Applicants in the sums individually charged to them”
On major works
“the legal fees and other fees totalling £13,854.07 incurred by the Respondent and identified in the 2020 accounts are payable by the Applicants in the sums individually charged to them”
On legal & professional costs
“the Tribunal does reduce the recoverable costs for this item by 20% to reflect the extent to which the Tribunal determines the planning and outcome of the works were not a reasonable standard. That is £3,729.36 of cost incurred.”
On major works
“the Tribunal determines that the costs for this aspect incurred by the Respondent are payable by the Applicants in the sums individually charged to them”
On major works
“fixing the fencing in place, even at the particular time and for a modest period, was within the range of reasonable decisions which the Respondent could take in the circumstances”
On other charges
“There was no initial need to consider whether the space previously available for electric meters and associated cablings would suffice in the replacement design”
Of Respondent (quoting written evidence to highlight the deficiency in planning)
“the Tribunal finds that is far from an adequate answer and the nature of the meters to be fitted and impact of that could and should have been considered sooner and planned for. That is irrespective of the point being specifically raised with Mr Buray but all the more obviously so where the point had been raised by a specialist contractor.”
Of Respondent / (failure to plan electric meter housing in advance)
“The Respondent did not engage very effectively with the Applicants' point about timing and any purpose served.”
Of Respondent (on heras fencing fixings)

Related

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.