HAV/00LC/LSC/2025/0730 — service charge decision
In HAV/00LC/LSC/2025/0730, decided 7 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 112B Wakeley Road, Rainham, Kent, ME8 8NP and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 112B Wakeley Road, Rainham, Kent, ME8 8NP
Decision date: 7 May 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2018-2024) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2024) | £4,000 | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Other charges (2024) | £1,500 | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2024) | £2,848 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the respondents have no right to demand either rent or service charges prior to their acquisition of the freehold on 26 April 2024”
“The Purported Demand is not a valid service charge demand because: a. It does not comply with s47 and s48 of the LTA 1987. ... b. The Purported Demand does not contain a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants”
“the respondents' Purported Demand for an interim service charge instalment of £125 per month (£1,500 pa), representing a 650% increase over the Lease requirement, without any explanation or budget, is not a sum the respondents can reasonably require under the Lease”
“the respondents did not comply with the consultation requirements of s.20 LTA 1985 with regard to the roof works; therefore, the respondents, as landlords, are limited to recovering £250 from the applicant”
“The respondents did not comply with the 05 December 2025 directions, and no witness statement(s) or evidence have been sent to the Tribunal.”
“The respondents either failed to engage in the process (pre- and post-application) or refused to do so, and further, they have not provided basic documentation when reasonably requested.”
“The respondents did not file any statement of case or any evidence. Nor did they take the opportunity to make written submissions on the s.20C/Sch 11 and Rule 13(2) application.”
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.