HAV/00HG/LSC/2025/0795 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HG/LSC/2025/0795, decided 1 September 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Ocean Crescent, 24 and 26 The Crescent, Plymouth and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ocean Crescent, 24 and 26 The Crescent, Plymouth
Decision date: 1 September 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Block Management Group Ltd (RBM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £150 | £150 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2022-23) | £180 | £180 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £582 | £582 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £1,150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £65 | £65 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2023-24) | £5,801 | £5,801 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £4,000 | £4,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024-25) | £1,014 | £1,014 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2024-25) | £21,115.39 | £7,601.57 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2024-25) | £15,655.90 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We are satisfied that this charge is recoverable as a service charge item as a cost reasonably incurred by the Respondent under its obligations under paragraph 10 of the Sixth Schedule.”
“We are satisfied that this charge is recoverable as a service charge item as a cost reasonably incurred by the Respondent and that the amount charged is reasonable.”
“We are satisfied that this charge is recoverable as a service charge item as a cost reasonably incurred by the Respondent and that the amount charged is reasonable.”
“In our view this item is not recoverable by the Respondent. The charges are for works that were done wholly inside apartment 37.”
“We are satisfied that this charge is recoverable as a service charge item as a cost reasonably incurred by the Respondent and that the amount charged is reasonable.”
“We are satisfied that these charges are recoverable as service charge items as costs reasonably incurred by the Respondent and that the amounts charged are reasonable.”
“The Respondent's evidence on these items was unsatisfactory. They failed prior to the day of the hearing to disclose the invoices in question. Even then, some of the invoices were missing and, importantly, the invoice for the major cost item (sub-paragraph (d)) was incomplete because it did not include the report detailing the work. This was despite the Applicants explicitly asking for them in the Scott Schedule and it being clear from the outset that they were required. Further, Mr Rendle's evidence in cross examination contradicted his witness statement.”
“Mr Rendle was unable to provide any detail at all as to reason for and the calculation of the cost of the work in the major cost invoice. The Respondents did not provide evidence from anyone who might have been involved in arranging for that work.”
“Mr Rendle's explanation of the costs in his witness statement was contradicted, and in effect withdrawn, in cross examination. He confirmed frankly in cross examination that he had no information about the costs, in the absence of the report which was referred to in the invoice but not produced by the Respondent.”
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.