HAV/00HG/LIS/2025/0002 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HG/LIS/2025/0002, decided 4 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, 2-3 Stokes Lane, Plymouth and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, 2-3 Stokes Lane, Plymouth
Decision date: 4 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group (RMG).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2014-2021) | £19,878.49 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2014-2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2022) | £2,190 | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £2,100 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal has concluded that that it has not received sufficient evidence to convince it that any service charge demands had been sent to the Respondent other than possibly three demands for service charges referred to by Mr Jones”
“The Tribunal finds that the Respondent is not liable to pay the Applicant any of the service charges it has claimed.”
“Mr Jones stated during the hearing that the Applicant would pursue the administration charges as contractual costs as part of its claim in the County Court. The Tribunal therefore has not determined the recoverability of those costs as part of the Tribunal proceedings”
“Since the Defendant has succeeded and the Claimant has lost it cannot recover any of its costs and I therefore make no order for costs.”
“No reasons were provided by the Applicant explaining why it had produced another bundle, why the evidence in it would assist the Tribunal at the hearing or why it had been sent to the Tribunal after 5 p.m. The Tribunal dismissed the application.”
“The Tribunal considered it was unfair to the Respondent and the Tribunal to attempt to introduce further information on the day before the Hearing.”
“It found the bundle poorly ordered and difficult to negotiate. For an undisclosed reason, the Applicant also sent four hard copies of the bundle to the Tribunal's London Hearing Centre.”
“It also drew his attention to what it termed the 'misleading information' on the demands which refers to a risk of RMG charging different administration charges ranging between £34 and £40 in respect of unpaid service charges.”
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.