HAV/00HB/LAM/2025/0612 & others — service charge decision
In HAV/00HB/LAM/2025/0612 & others, decided 31 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 15 Miles Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2JW and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15 Miles Road, Clifton, Bristol, BS8 2JW
Decision date: 31 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2021-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-2022) | £19,922 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2021-2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the Applicant had agreed to or at least acquiesced in the demanding of service charges including sums to be paid into the reserve fund for the period until July 2025.”
“The legal costs of £19,922.00 were not service costs able to be demanded as service charges. Therefore, the £4,980.50 of service charges paid by the Applicant and used to pay ¼ of those actual service costs were not payable for that purpose.”
“The Tribunal determined that the consultation procedure followed by the Respondent had been a valid one.”
“it was agreed in oral evidence by the Applicant that the works required had been dealt with by the insurance company. He accepted that no service charges had been demanded.”
“Nothing was presented by the Applicant in respect of administration fees, save for as covered by vii) below.”
“The Tribunal however, also made clear - and considers it appropriate to repeat in this Decision - that it was distinctly unimpressed by the approach taken by the Respondent or on the Respondent's behalf. The statement and other documents were late by only a modest extent. The Tribunal firmly considers that the reasonable and appropriate approach on behalf of the Respondent would have been to agree the necessary modest extension of time, which the Respondent could have done. The quantity of evidence involved would have been a separate issue to address. It follows that the approach taken was not a reasonable or appropriate one and the Tribunal so finds.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Applicant was treated differently to the other lessees. No reason has been advanced by the Respondent which might persuade the Tribunal that the Respondent took a fair and even-handed approach. The approach taken is notable and goes to the wider treatment of lessees and the wider approach to management.”
“Mr Brooke was at best vague in his answers, somewhat in contrast to his evidence on other matters, stating that the other lessees had paid their contributions but not venturing when that was and whether it had happened at the time of pursuing the 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.