HAV/00ML/LSC/2025/0613 — service charge decision
In HAV/00ML/LSC/2025/0613, decided 23 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 25, The Priory, London Road, Brighton, BN1 8QS and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 25, The Priory, London Road, Brighton, BN1 8QS
Decision date: 23 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Jordan and Cook.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2024) | £0 | — | conceded | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2024) | £14,592 | £14,592 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024) | £12,784 | £12,784 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £1,974 | £1,974 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £2,734.80 | £2,734.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £834 | £834 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £270 | £270 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £108 | £108 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £30 | £30 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024) | £2,778 | £2,778 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent had identified this item as conceded and that position had been recorded in the hearing bundle, the Applicant agreed. The tribunal therefore makes no determination on this point.”
“Both the Applicant and the Respondent agreed that the requirement for the rent of the Flat 43 was an obligation under the service charge provisions of the leases and that the rent was prescribed by formula and so the amount paid could not be challenged.”
“The tribunal finds the overall level of service of cleaning within the scope of reasonable and the cost reasonable given the level of charge being below that of the market quote obtained by the Applicant.”
“The Applicant did not challenge the payability of this under the lease nor the reasonableness of the amount. The tribunal in the absence of challenge determined these figures to be payable by the Applicants.”
“given the professional fire risk assessment in respect of the door, finds these the cost for these items to be reasonable and therefore properly form part of the service charge for 2024.”
“The Applicant did not challenge the payability of this under the lease nor the reasonableness of the amount. The tribunal in the absence of challenge determined these figures to be payable by the Applicants.”
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.