HAV/00ML/LBC/2025/0604 — service charge decision
In HAV/00ML/LBC/2025/0604, decided 15 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 18, 50 The Drive, Hove BN3 3JD and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 18, 50 The Drive, Hove BN3 3JD
Decision date: 15 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Helm Estate Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“By failing to remedy defects and keep the front entrance door and attachments in good and substantial repair and condition contrary to clause 4(A)(i) of the Lease.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied the Respondent was in breach of articles 8, 17 and 22 of the 2005 Order at the date of the application and remains in breach in failing to remedy the defects in the front entrance door and service cupboard door”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the flooring does not comply with clause 4H of the Lease.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent has not complied with the requirements of clause 3(G) of the Lease.”
“Mr Winter was unable to point to any increase in the premium or any other evidence that the insurance policy was liable to be rendered void or voidable.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied there has been a breach of the covenant in S1/12 by failing to comply with a request which has not been properly identified.”
“Mr Winter disclosed that he was also a director of the Respondent freeholder. Mr Winter confirmed that he had no legal qualifications or relevant legal expertise.”
“At the hearing it became clear that to understand the Applicant's case other potentially relevant documents needed to be seen.”
“The Applicant has not identified the request for information after that date (or before that date) which it relies upon as a breach of section 95. There is a lengthy 4 page letter of closely typed information in a small font sent to the Respondent on 7th May 2024 at pages 173 to 176. It is unclear which part or parts of that letter (if any) are relied upon in support of this allegation.”
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.