HAV/00LC/LSC/2025/0697 — service charge decision
In HAV/00LC/LSC/2025/0697, decided 26 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 75B Skinner Street, Gillingham, Kent and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 75B Skinner Street, Gillingham, Kent
Decision date: 26 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: SE1 Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Other charges (2024-25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Other charges (2024-25) | — | £100 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024-25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | £370.51 | £370.51 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024-25) | £185.54 | £185.54 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024-25) | £450 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Service charges for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 accounting years are not payable by the Applicant because the Respondent has not provided a certified Maintenance Charge account.”
“Service charges for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 accounting years are not payable by the Applicant because the Respondent has not provided a certified Maintenance Charge account.”
“the lease as properly construed does not allow for interim service charge demands exceeding £100 in March and September each year. Any demand in excess of this amount as an interim maintenance charge is not, therefore, payable by the Applicant.”
“Diana Logan confirms in her statement of case that the insurance is agreed… the Tribunal is satisfied that the amounts charged are consistent with the certificates of insurance.”
“Diana Logan confirms in her statement of case that the insurance is agreed… the Tribunal is satisfied that the amounts charged are consistent with the certificates of insurance.”
“She has not raised any challenge to the charges for management, which the Tribunal finds are supported by invoices from SE1.”
“The Tribunal finds Tenant Account Summary cannot be relied on as an accurate account. Large unexplained debits and credits have been applied to the account which appear to relate neither to payments made by the Applicant nor service charge demands, in particular in relation to the 2017 to 2022 accounting years [48].”
“the Respondent has produced no explanation for the charge, and no evidence showing what maintenance was carried out. Nor has it produced any evidence showing that sum was paid. Although various invoices have been produced going back to 2016, there is simply no evidence to support this charge. The Respondent has been on notice from the Appellant's statement of case and position statement that this was disputed it was incumbent on them to provide such evidence.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied they do not include any certification either by Cormorant Limited, SE1 or an accountant. Nor do the demands include the summary of the rights and obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to service charges required by s21B(1) of the 1985 Act and the Service Charges (Summary of Rights and Obligations, and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2007.”
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.