Decision summary

CHI/00ML/LSC/2024/0104 — service charge decision

In CHI/00ML/LSC/2024/0104, decided 21 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 13 & 21 Pacific Heights, Suez Way, Saltdean, BN2 8AX and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 13 & 21 Pacific Heights, Suez Way, Saltdean, BN2 8AX
Decision date: 21 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Grand Ocean View Management Company Limited.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Utilities (2021/2022)£80,659.61£80,659.61Allowed in full
Legal & professional costs (2021/2022)£91,214.10£91,214.10Allowed in full
Utilities (2022/2023)£108,249£0Disallowed entirelySection 20B 18-month time limit
Legal & professional costs (2022/2023)£46,808£0Disallowed entirelySection 20B 18-month time limit
Buildings insurance (2022/2023)£71,748£71,748Allowed in full
Other charges (2022/2023)£5,784£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Other charges (2022/2023)£50,201£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost
Major works (2023/2024)£31,998£250ReducedNo Section 20 consultation, Dispensation granted conditionally

Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.

Key passages (verbatim)

“the tribunal determines that the amounts demanded in respect of electricity charges for the 2021/2022 service charge year are both payable and reasonable in amount.”
On utilities
“the tribunal determines that the amounts demanded in respect of NHBC legal fees (Estate), legal dispute with leaseholder (Estate) and NHBC legal fees (Block) for the 2021/2022 service charge year are both payable and reasonable in amount.”
On legal & professional costs
“the First Respondent agreed, saying no section 20B notice was served and so the Second Respondent is time barred.”
On utilities
“The First Respondent acknowledged that no section 20B notice was served and so the Second Respondent is again time barred.”
On legal & professional costs
“the tribunal determines that the amounts demanded as contributions towards building insurance (Block) for the 2022/2023 service charge year are both payable and reasonable in amount.”
On buildings insurance
“items charged without any explanation as to what these relate to cannot reasonably be payable.”
On other charges
“This dispute could have been avoided if the First Respondent had engaged more with its landlord and its tenants, rather than passively passing on costs without proper interrogation; the Tribunal found that legitimate concerns raised by the Applicants were not addressed in a timeous or proactive manner, instead relying on a heavy handed approach to try to force tenants to pay. Having a different year end to the Second Respondent caused unnecessary confusion with no apparent steps taken to address this.”
Of Hyde Housing Association (First Respondent)
“the tribunal did note that the First Respondent could have done more to interrogate demands and to keep its leaseholders informed, for example by providing information from AGM meetings for the Second Respondent.”
Of Hyde Housing Association (First Respondent)

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.