HAV/00HB/LSC/2025/0707 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HB/LSC/2025/0707, decided 23 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 15 Linden Road, Bristol, BS6 7RJ and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15 Linden Road, Bristol, BS6 7RJ
Decision date: 23 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2025) | £73,369.56 | £73,369.56 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | £7,336.96 | £7,336.96 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Accordingly the cost of the roof work is allowed in full and the Applicant is liable to pay his 1/3rd share.”
“it was well within the Respondent's discretion to engage an accredited contractor. This approach was also supported by the fact that at that time, the property insurers had made it a stipulation of continued cover that the contractor was accredited.”
“This Tribunal considers that clause 3.2 does permit payment in advance for non-annually recurring items such as the treatment of Japanese Knotweed. Accordingly, it was a valid charge and remains payable.”
“Had Easton Bevin been liaising with the Roof Group we would have expected their quote to have aligned with the specification at the very least, and also that they would have tendered for the works. The impression left with the Tribunal was that the Roof Group had not been in contact at this time with either Easton Bevin or 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.