HAV/00LC/LSC/2025/0624 — service charge decision
In HAV/00LC/LSC/2025/0624, decided 5 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 6 Arun House, Silver Streak Way, Rochester, Kent, ME2 2GU and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6 Arun House, Silver Streak Way, Rochester, Kent, ME2 2GU
Decision date: 5 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pembroke Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023-24) | £1,779.13 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £82.62 | £82.62 | Allowed in full | — |
| Ground-rent-adjacent charges (2023-24) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £1,872.14 | £1,872.14 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £150 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“costs which were incurred by the Respondent more than 18 months before they were demanded of the Applicant on 27 September 2024. As such, the Applicant is not liable to pay these sums further to LTA 1985, s.20B(2).”
“In respect of the other invoices described in ii)-iv), we find that the costs were reasonable and the Applicant is liable to pay them.”
“In respect of the other invoices described in ii)-iv), we find that the costs were reasonable and the Applicant is liable to pay them.”
“In respect of the other invoices described in ii)-iv), we find that the costs were reasonable and the Applicant is liable to pay them.”
“we disallow the £150.00 Management Charge for 1 April 2023–31 March 2024 on the basis that the service provided by the Respondent during this period was not reasonable.”
“We found the Respondent's accounting to be impenetrable. We were directed to the Statement of Account [185] where despite adjustments being made, the account balance did not vary. Mr Pyner admitted that that should not have happened and that he fully recognised that there were areas to improve upon. It was not clear how charges had been applied to the account.”
“the Respondent had persistently failed to provide a detailed breakdown of the costs demanded by the Managing Agent for which the Applicant would be the ultimate payer. The Applicant was entitled to understand what those costs are in order to be able to plead which, if any, of those costs he considered to be unreasonable.”
“The 'Actual Costs' of £4,230.90 are not supported by the invoices in evidence. This is another example of the Respondent's failings.”
“In the Applicant's subsequent correspondence, the Respondent does not assist the Applicant by directing him to the relevant provisions of the Lease or to provide a copy of the Superior Lease. This is another example of the poor standard of communication.”
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.