HAV/00HC/LSC/2025/0611 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HC/LSC/2025/0611, decided 4 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 23-28 Gateway Terrace, Portishead, Bristol and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 23-28 Gateway Terrace, Portishead, Bristol
Decision date: 4 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Property Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023-24) | £4,542 | £4,087.80 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2023-24) | £12,660 | £11,394 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2023-24) | £3,007.20 | £3,007.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023-24) | £2,568 | £2,568 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | £1,719.08 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“£4,087.80 in respect of invoices 1423, 1424, 1425, and 1640 (ie £4,542 less 10%)”
“£11,394 in respect of the works completed by AllBuild under their quotation dated 13th June 2023 and for which they invoiced in 10 tranches (ie £12,660 less 10%)”
“the erection of scaffolding was not 'qualifying works' because, at that time, it was not known what works were required. In agreement with the Respondent, it was for the purposes of investigation only.”
“as the scaffolding for the second set of works was procured at a lower cost than offered by AllBuild, it would not be appropriate to apply that reduction in respect of the EasyAccess scaffolding invoice.”
“it is not necessary for the Tribunal to make any findings or determination on this issue in this determination”
“it would be inequitable for the Respondent to be in a position where they could recover the costs of the hearing which has been caused largely by their own errors.”
“While the invoicing scheme was perplexing, he provided an explanation from the Respondent's position and recognised that he could not speak for its contractors.”
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.