HAV/00ML/LSC/2025/0606 — service charge decision
In HAV/00ML/LSC/2025/0606, decided 11 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 14 Russell Square, Brighton and found largely for the leaseholder: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 14 Russell Square, Brighton
Decision date: 11 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Pepper Fox.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £855.83 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Section 20B 18-month time limit, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £2,001 | £592.43 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £958 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2024) | £1,320 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Other charges (2024) | £180 | £90 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £72 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Buildings insurance (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“No notice was served thereafter during the relevant period under Section 20B of the 1985 Act... so any 'demand' for payment is now out of time – being more than 18 months after the costs were supposedly incurred.”
“The insurance premium payable in June 2024 (for the year to June 2025) was £1,184.86... The Applicants are liable to pay their 50% share, i.e. £592.43.”
“the Applicants rightly pointed out that under Clause 17 of the Lease such costs are only recoverable from the tenants in certain circumstances... none of which apply here.”
“there was no provision in the Lease (either explicit or implied) for appointment of a manager. In the circumstances the Tribunal determines that the Applicants are not liable to contribute to any management fee.”
“Only £180 is reasonable and payable... According to the Respondent's own evidence (invoices) there was, in fact a duplication: the Elite book-keepers and the Pepper Fox managers have charged accountancy fees for the same period.”
“The Tribunal determines that it is not reasonable for the tenants to pay for a sign to be affixed to the building, giving details of the managing agent, when that agent's appointment was not provided for under the said Lease.”
“the correspondence, 'statements' and 'accounts' issued by the managing agents Pepper Fox were inaccurate, incorrectly dated, misleading and confusing in the extreme.”
“Gareth Knox, Director of Pepper Fox, had not been helpful in his written responses to the Applicants' enquiries: his answers were patronising (suggesting that they should read their Lease properly) inadequate (in alleging that they were in arrears when they were not, and giving no explanation for incorrect items in the Budget) and in several instances unlawful (in demanding substantial Ground Rent payments which were not provided for in the Lease.)”
“It was unfortunate that no representative from Pepper Fox had made a statement, and no-one from the company attended the hearing, but the Tribunal found that overall the standard of management was poor.”
“the Tribunal did not find that either Mr. Knox or ODT Solicitors had been courteous and helpful, nor was it apparent that they had given 'repeated explanations' or made 'numerous efforts to assist'. On the contrary, it was found that the correspondence from those representing the Respondent was opaque and/or unhelpful. The repeated threat of legal proceedings, with substantial associated costs, was inappropriate and unjustified in the light of the absence of appropriate provisions in the Lease and the managing agents' inaccurate claims of arrears and late payments.”
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.