HAV/00HX/LSC/2025/0824 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HX/LSC/2025/0824, decided 5 October 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 14 Walton House, Redhouse Way, Swindon SN25 2GN and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 14 Walton House, Redhouse Way, Swindon SN25 2GN
Decision date: 5 October 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Group Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2025) | £80,000 | £50,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | £9,373.03 | £5,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2025) | £2,049 | £2,049 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the £80,000 contribution to the reserve fund for the year commencing 1st January 2025 was unreasonable in all the circumstances of the case. It is determined that the contribution that year should be reduced to £50,000, of which Mr. Lines' 15% share is £3,333.33”
“the surveyor's fees of £9,373.03 total in 2025 were also found to be unreasonable, and a figure of £5,000 was substituted”
“the Management fee of £2,049 for the same period, this figure was found to be reasonable, and the Tribunal determines that the Applicant is liable to pay his 15% share in full, namely £136.60”
“The Tribunal found that this action on the part of the managers, in refusing to consider Mr. Lines' proposal, was unreasonable and was against the interests of the leaseholders. Mr. Lines should have been allowed to nominate a contractor to tender for the works, particularly in view of his knowledge and experience of building construction.”
“The Tribunal found that the link between Mainstay, Innovus and FirstPort should have been declared from the outset, to ensure transparency and to give the leaseholders an opportunity to consider alternatives.”
“The tender process was found to be at best unsatisfactory, and at worst inadequate. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the quotes obtained represented a true reflection of market prices, especially in view of the estimates obtained by the Applicant.”
“in respect of the contract administration, the Tribunal found that there was little if any evidence of competent oversight of the roofing works as they progressed, and Mr. Sweeting's answers to questions about the nature and extent of the works were unsatisfactory”
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.