HAV/00ML/LIS/2026/0004 — service charge decision
In HAV/00ML/LIS/2026/0004, decided 6 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Lower Ground Floor Flat (AKA 11A), 11 Brunswick Street West, Hove, East Sussex and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Lower Ground Floor Flat (AKA 11A), 11 Brunswick Street West, Hove, East Sussex
Decision date: 6 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Deacon Asset Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-2025) | £10,925.55 | £10,925.55 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2024-25) | £120 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2024-25) | — | £20,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the arrears of service charges from 25/03/2022 to 24/03/2025 in the sum of £10,925.55 as per the claim form are payable and reasonable”
“The reserve fund sums as demanded in paragraph 30 above are payable under the Lease.”
“The management fees are pleaded separately to the service charge. The Claimant's witness had no details or rationale for this charge; I find them to be unreasonably incurred.”
“On the evidence available, and applying a broad evaluative judgment to the N260 Statement of Costs, I find that the relevant costs recoverable under the Lease are £20,000, inclusive of VAT and disbursements.”
“I do have concerns about the Claimant returning to the Defendant the £5,483.15, which was paid to it as a result of the Claimant issuing a County Court Claim, and then continuing to charge 15% interest on the total sum. I have noted Ms Fisher's submissions regarding the need for the Claimant to reserve the right to forfeiture, but I do not accept that there was no mechanism available to hold the funds pending the outcome of these proceedings and reduce the interest claimed, and simultaneously reserve the right to forfeiture.”
“The hourly rates exceed the solicitors' national guideline rates. The fees for Grade A ranged from £300, £5 over the national guideline, to £390, some 30% over the national guideline. The fees for Grade D were some 40% over the national guideline. I am not permitted to allow costs that are unreasonable in amount”
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.