HAV/00HE/LSC/2024/0636 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HE/LSC/2024/0636, decided 12 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flat 6 Ebenezer Chapel, Gunnislake, Cornwall and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6 Ebenezer Chapel, Gunnislake, Cornwall
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Silverkey Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £211.27 | £211.27 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £3,145 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £519.64 | £355 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £519.70 | £430 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £769.74 | £875 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £2,620 | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £2,264.96 | £1,500 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2025) | £799.99 | £799.99 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | £2,590.63 | £1,600 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“There was no dispute about the insurance figure, and the Applicant was charged the correct amount for his one-seventh share of the premium.”
“the Tribunal found that a maintenance contribution of £300 per unit for a block of this nature, given the landlord's obligations for management, maintenance and repair under the Lease, was reasonable.”
“The Tribunal found that the £3,154 accountancy fee in 2019 was in respect of Rowan Homes business overall rather than specifically for GCMC, therefore it was not a valid service cost and the leaseholders were not obliged to contribute to it.”
“the Tribunal found that the £300 maintenance contribution for this year was reasonable and no deduction should be made.”
“the under-sink water heater bill [at Page 93] was a leaseholder expenditure and should not be regarded as a 'service cost' recoverable by way of service charges. However, the disputed invoice from Total Boiler Solutions was for £40 only, and a one-seventh share of that would be £5.71.”
“The under-sink water heaters and the staircase repairs were found to be costs for the individual flat-owners and were not recoverable by way of service charges... The £519.64 service charge for this year was therefore held to be unreasonable, as a one-seventh share of the total allowable expenditure would be £355.”
“the Tribunal found that the Respondent Mr. Lester had failed to comply with his obligations under Schedule 4 of the Lease, in that he failed to provide any timely service charge notices giving particulars of the service costs in each year.”
“the absence of any proper service charge accounts meant that it was extremely difficult to determine what exactly was being demanded, in respect of what costs, and what was being paid by the Applicant each year during the relevant period.”
“Mr. Lester acknowledged that no service charge accounts at all existed for the period from 2017 - 2024, and he agreed that he should have kept detailed accounts from the outset and provided them to the leaseholders as required by the Lease.”
“the failure to keep proper service charge accounts and provide information to leaseholders was clearly in breach of his obligations as a landlord, and not in accordance with the relevant RICS guidelines, the 1985 Act and the terms of the Lease”
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.