HAV/00HE/LSC/2025/0600 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HE/LSC/2025/0600, decided 30 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Lodges at Hustyns Resort, St Breock, Wadebridge, Cornwall and found largely for the leaseholder: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Lodges at Hustyns Resort, St Breock, Wadebridge, Cornwall
Decision date: 30 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hustyns CA Management Ltd (HCA).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | £12,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2023) | £105,814 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2023) | £35,034 | £17,607 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | — | £300 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Staffing & concierge (2023) | £22,445 | £2,338 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2023) | £19,353 | £2,688 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Major works (2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2018) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2019) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mr Gupta's evidence was that a reserve fund did not exist. We did not understand the Respondent to defend this element of the service charge in the light of Mr Gupta's evidence. It was therefore agreed that the charge under this heading for 2023 is not payable.”
“both possible premiums paid in relation to 2023 must have been incurred before the cut-off date of 4 October 2023 … The upshot is that the cost of insurance up to May 2024 is irrecoverable.”
“The reasonable figure for lighting costs in 2023 is £4,275. As stated, the 20% extra VAT component must also be removed.”
“The result is that £17,607 is payable. This figure does not include the extra 20% VAT component.”
“There were (near enough) three months in 2023 before the cut-off date, so £300 are payable.”
“removing VAT, substituting a value of 25%, and limiting the costs to those incurred after the cut-off date, the reasonable figure for night security is £2,338.”
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.