HAV/00HH/LSC/2025/0782 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HH/LSC/2025/0782, decided 16 September 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at 16-54 Ebdon Way, Torquay, Devon and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 16-54 Ebdon Way, Torquay, Devon
Decision date: 16 September 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Plymouth Block Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2021-22) | £11,966 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £11,738 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Lifts (2023-24) | £11,717.88 | — | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £8,698.39 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Utilities (2023-24) | — | — | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £8,500 | £3,000 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2024-25) | £2,822.78 | £2,822.78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024-25) | £2,590.70 | £2,590.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024-25) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Lifts (2024-25) | £2,853.60 | £2,853.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-25) | £525 | £525 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024-25) | £47,523 | £35,642.25 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £8,896 | £8,573.32 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2025-26) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“this was for Schedule 10: 20 to 32 Edmonds Walk, not a schedule to which the Applicants contributed”
“this again related to the Schedule 10 … not intended to make any demand in respect of this”
“Given the failure to make the deficit demand in time, a significant amount of those costs has already been disallowed, so that in fact, the Applicants will only have paid around £2,000 for the lift works.”
“none of the deficit sum is recoverable and the total amount is disallowed”
“this issue has also been effectively dealt with by reason of the decision on the deficit demand for this year”
“We do not consider that this of itself is a reason for disallowing the cost. It was simply under budgeted.”
“The Respondent was given an extension of time to file their documents, but failed to do so until the last working day before the hearing. They therefore triggered the debarring order contained in the directions.”
“The Respondent then applied to adjourn the hearing on the basis that their witness was unwell. This was more than a little presumptuous given that not only had no witness statement been served, but they were debarred by reason of their default in filing a bundle.”
“It was said that the Respondent was pursuing the freeholder for an explanation. That of itself was telling in that it amounted to an acknowledgement that an explanation was required.”
“the Respondent's poor conduct in relation to complying with directions for these proceedings”
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.