Zoe Evelyn, who lives at Woodstock Close, faced off against Breckon & Breckon, who have been managing the estate on behalf of Woodstock Estates, the freeholder.
Although, not every point was proven in Ms Evelyn’s favour, the first-tier Tribunal (property chamber) – an independent legal body in England – did rule that a number of charges were not payable or needed to be reduced.
Following the ruling Ms Evelyn called it a “deeply stressful endeavour”, but a worthwhile one as she reckons it could have implications for tenants and leaseholders across Oxford.
Ms Evelyn said the proceedings have had a “considerable impact” on her.
She said: “I can’t describe the impact this had on my wellbeing and the stress and frustration it put me under.
“The anxiety and stress became significant enough that I had to seek medical advice from my doctor.”
READ MORE: Oxfordshire crews rush to emergency amid fire reports at school farm
Breckon & Breckon, which has the right to appeal the ruling, said it is discussing the case with advisers and the freeholder of the building, Woodstock Estates Ltd.
A spokesperson said: “As there remains a right of appeal and the freeholder is considering its position, it would be inappropriate to comment further on the detail of the decision at this stage.
“Evidence was provided to the Tribunal by the chair of the Woodstock Close Leaseholders’ Association, who expressed support for the management approach adopted since Breckon & Breckon’s appointment three years ago, and for the work undertaken to address historic issues prior to their appointment.
Zoe Evelyn who lives in Woodstock Close (Image: Zoe Evelyn)
“Breckon & Breckon remains committed to providing professional property management services and working in the best interests of its clients and leaseholders.”
Ms Evelyn’s complaints relate to the asset management part of Breckon & Breckon.
She moved into the building in February 2025 and said she initially became concerned about the cleaning of the building, which she called not up to standard.
She said: “I reported these concerns to Breckon & Breckon and was repeatedly ignored, before ultimately being refused communication altogether.”
She added: “This led me to have very significant concerns about the management of my flat by the company.”
READ MORE: Arrest after Oxfordshire Ford van motorist has multiple vehicles seized
Following the hearing on August 5, the court gave its judgement later in the month, including some criticism of the service charge, agreeing to an extent with Ms Evelyn that it was “confusing, incomplete, and opaque”.
Service charges are fees paid by a tenant or leaseholder to a landlord or property management company to cover the cost of maintaining, repairing and managing shared buildings and communal areas.
The court agreed that cleaning contractors for Ms Evelyn’s block delivered “roughly a quarter of the service paid for” and adjusted the bill appropriately.
Extra gardening ‘improvement’ charges totalling £3,000 were disallowed as they fell within the existing garden contract.
The practice of transferring surplus service charge money automatically into the reserve fund was also not allowed.
Woodstock Close estates (Image: Zoe Evelyn)
The court said: “If the respondent [Woodstock Estates / Breckon & Breckon] wishes to collect more service charge towards a reserve fund, it must do so under the heading of reserve fund, and not by any other method.”
The proposed increase in Breckon & Breckon’s management fee for 2026/27 was refused, keeping it at £420 per annum, as the court referenced “shortcomings in the management service provided”.
Equally, the tribunal ruled in Woodstock Estates and Breckon & Breckon’s favour on a number of points including relating to audit fees and insurance costs.
Ms Evelyn said Breckon & Breckon has “behaved appallingly” and said she hopes other people who have properties being managed by them in Oxford read her case so that, if they are failing, they are held to account.
#Oxford #property #firm #fire #stressful #court #case