CHI/21UG/LSC/2024/0029 — service charge decision
In CHI/21UG/LSC/2024/0029, decided 7 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 15 Great Sanders House, Hurst Lane, Battle and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15 Great Sanders House, Hurst Lane, Battle
Decision date: 7 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Burkinshaw Block Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2022) | £750 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £12,732 | £12,732 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £5,569 | £5,569 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £11,406 | £11,406 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,316 | £2,316 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £1,317 | £1,317 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £3,183.46 | £2,833.32 | Reduced | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent accepted that it had failed to comply with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of major works and so was limited to seeking that sum from the Applicant.”
“the cost of the roof works were reasonable to incur and there was no evidence to suggest that the works were not of a reasonable standard”
“those costs for patch repair, seem to the Tribunal as being at presently reasonably incurred and within a range of options open to a landlord managing its property and allocating its resources.”
“the total of the two interim demands was less than the total expenditure in the year before, and only marginally greater than the year end 2021, it seems to the Tribunal that these were reasonable demands”
“the Respondent had provided no evidence as to how those figures had been arrived at; no budget had been provided justifying those amount.”
“Instead of paying back any surplus to the leaseholders, it swept that off to a reserve fund.”
“The Tribunal notes that there is a surplus in respect of the sums demanded on account and the sum actually incurred. The Tribunal queries whether it is legitimate for the Respondent to sweep that off into reserves, or whether it should account to the Applicant for that surplus.”
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.