HAV/00HH/LSC/2025/0715 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HH/LSC/2025/0715, decided 19 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at 28A Thurlow Hill, Torquay, TQ1 3EJ and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 28A Thurlow Hill, Torquay, TQ1 3EJ
Decision date: 19 May 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Remus Management Limited / Pier Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2024/2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2025/2026) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/2025) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Other charges (2025/2026) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023/2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2023/2024) | £4,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Administration charges (2024/2025) | — | £0 | conceded | — |
| Management fees (2024/2025) | £927 | £927 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2025/2026) | £923 | £923 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024/2025) | — | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024/2025) | — | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/2025) | — | £548 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2025/2026) | — | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025/2026) | — | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025/2026) | — | £524 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/2025) | £3,339.20 | £990 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2025/2026) | £3,396.80 | £980.40 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the amounts charged by the Respondent for buildings insurance during the disputed years is reasonable.”
“The Tribunal finds that the amounts charged by the Respondent for buildings insurance during the disputed years is reasonable.”
“charges within the general service charges for public liability insurance are not reasonable and are not recoverable from the Applicant.”
“charges within the general service charges for public liability insurance are not reasonable and are not recoverable from the Applicant.”
“The amount demanded for the reserve fund in 2023/2024 is not a reasonable provision for anticipated expenditure.”
“The Respondent provided no evidence of any other substantial works or redecoration but allocated a reserve fund of £10,000 in 2023/2024 for 'unidentified major works'.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Respondent's statement is inaccurate, albeit it suspects not deliberately.”
“No explanation has been put forward by the Respondent to explain why such substantial service charge demands were made of the Applicant when the sums demanded do not appear to match the services provided. No explanation about the calculation of the amount of the reserve funds demanded has been disclosed.”
“The engagement of the Respondent is somewhat less transparent.”
“Those demands and credits are evidence of the haphazard way in which service charges for expenditure anticipated, but never carried, out was demanded 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.