HAV/00HG/LBC/2024/0603 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HG/LBC/2024/0603, decided 4 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at First Floor Flat 198 North Road West, Plymouth, Devon and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: First Floor Flat 198 North Road West, Plymouth, Devon
Decision date: 4 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024-2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2023-2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent has breached Clause 5(a) of the lease as he has failed to repair defects to the bathroom in the Property since at least 14 August 2023 thereby allowing water to leak into the Ground Floor Flat causing the ceiling of the Ground Floor Flat to partially collapse.”
“The Respondent has breached Clause 5(b) of the lease as he has failed to make good the damage caused to the ceiling of the Ground Floor Flat.”
“The Tribunal had no evidence before it of the previous year's premium. Nor was there evidence that the Applicant had been unable to find an alternative insurer willing to insure those risks.”
“No copy of that inspection report was produced in evidence, nor was any other documentary evidence produced to support the allegations made. It is not sufficient for the Applicant to simply make assertions without more.”
“The only evidence of such demands being made are in the emails from the Applicant sent to the Respondent none of meet the legal requirements to be a valid demand for rent or service charge.”
“The Tribunal finds the Applicant has not demonstrated that a breach of those requirements would constitute a breach of the lease for the purposes of s168(4) of the 2002 Act.”
“Mr Dawson accepted that the Applicant has not produced the Heritage Preservation survey in evidence. The Tribunal notes this was apparently obtained by the Applicant on 20 June 2024 and no reasons were given for the failure to disclose.”
“Mere assertions of breach are not sufficient.”
“It is not sufficient for the Applicant to simply make assertions without more.”
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.