CHI/21UD/LSC/2024/0117 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UD/LSC/2024/0117, decided 19 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flats 1-5, 17 Devonshire Road, Hastings, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1-5, 17 Devonshire Road, Hastings, East Sussex
Decision date: 19 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Oakfield PM Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023-24) | £32,636.31 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Historic neglect |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £2,600 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £6,276 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £700 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £3,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £1,500 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £4,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £3,000 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £3,481.20 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £2,532 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £600 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024-25) | £2,500 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £1,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024-25) | £5,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we determine that all of the costs incurred for the major works would have been avoided but for the Respondent's breach of covenant. The Applicants are entitled to claim damages for breach of covenant equal to the full sum that has been demanded, and that claim can be set off against their liability for the service charges demanded for the major works.”
“We determine that the service charges demanded for the remaining items under challenge are payable by the Applicants.”
“We are satisfied that the charges demanded for these works are payable by the Applicants. The Applicants have not established that there is any statutory provision that required the Respondent to do the works at an earlier time than they were done.”
“We determine that the service charges demanded for the remaining items under challenge are payable by the Applicants.”
“The Respondent's Statement of Case confirmed that the Respondent accepted that the charges that had been demanded for the fire safety doors were not recoverable as service charges.”
“In respect of the costs for the installation of the new mains supply, the Respondent confirmed that these costs had, in fact, not been incurred... This sum was however refunded to each leaseholder because the funds were available from the service charge budget for that year.”
“the clear picture painted was of an absentee landlord who had, save on one occasion when prompted to do so by a council enforcement notice, ignored the leaseholders and the Property. The necessitated self-insurance by the leaseholders speaks volumes as to his lack of engagement.”
“She confirmed that there was very little by way of hand over material; consistent with the Respondent's absenteeism.”
“he did this work under the compulsion of the section 215 Notice, rather than in compliance with his repair covenant in the Leases.”
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.