Decision summary

CHI/43UG/LSC/2024/0116 — service charge decision

In CHI/43UG/LSC/2024/0116, decided 14 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 10 Old Auction House, 70 Guildford Street, Chertsey, Surrey and found largely for the leaseholder: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: Flat 10 Old Auction House, 70 Guildford Street, Chertsey, Surrey
Decision date: 14 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2019)£1,183.66£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease
Repairs & maintenance (2019-2020)Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost, No Section 20 consultation
Reserve fund contributions (2021)Disallowed entirelyNot payable under the lease
Other charges (2021)£1,183.66£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease
Other charges (2022)£1,957.53£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease
Other charges (2023)£5,186.11£0Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease
Repairs & maintenance (2024)£8,402.21£1,513.63ReducedLandlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease
Legal & professional costs (2022)Disallowed entirelyLandlord could not evidence the cost

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The Respondent has not produced evidence which substantiates or explains the £1183.66 claimed as a debit for that service charge year in the service charge account prepared by Eagerstates of 7th December 2020.”
On other charges
“call out and repair to gate (£3775.20) Various electrical repairs (£4701.44), Intercom and doorbell call out (£282.00), Scaffolding alarm scaffolding Roof valley works Insulation to lofts & cover holes (£7741.20)”
On repairs & maintenance
“The 2021 Decision determined the Lease did not authorise Service charge demands for reserve fund. The Tribunal agrees with that determination.”
On reserve fund contributions
“The sum of £1183.66 and the total debit calculated at page 56 at £1770.92 is not payable for the service charge year ending December 2021 insofar as it includes service charge.”
On other charges
“The total debit calculated at page 59 at £1957.23 is not payable insofar as it includes service charge for the service charge year ending December 2022.”
On other charges
“The total debit calculated at page 62 at £5186.11 is not payable insofar as it includes service charge for the service charge year ending December 2023.”
On other charges
“The Respondent's omission to attend the hearing, its failure to provide a witness statement or any documents to explain the claim to the alleged balance of £8914.09 the service charge accounts and demands produced by Eagerstates, severely hampered the Tribunal in determining those costs which are payable or reasonably incurred.”
Of Assethold Limited / Eagerstates Ltd
“The Respondent's omission to provide written or other evidence to explain or confirm the service charge accounts and demands for each of the service charge years in issue raises questions about the accuracy of the accounts provided by Eagerstates and the sums claimed as service charges. The omission to produce copies of accounts prepared by qualified accountants for most of the service charge years when it is clear that the cost of such accounts have been charged within service charge, or the underlying invoices or receipts has troubled the Tribunal.”
Of Eagerstates Ltd / Assethold Limited
“The inclusion of a £200 item for reserve fund in the estimated service charges for 2021 at page 54 (an item specifically disallowed by the 2021 Decision) is consistent with the Respondent not taking account of the findings of that decision.”
Of Eagerstates Ltd

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.