HAV/00ML/LSC/2025/0656 — service charge decision
In HAV/00ML/LSC/2025/0656, decided 1 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at Flat 10 Hereford Court, 61 The Drive, Hove, East Sussex and gave a decision: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 10 Hereford Court, 61 The Drive, Hove, East Sussex
Decision date: 1 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Harper Stone Freehold Management (HS).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024) | £5,578.85 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Works not necessary, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2024) | £1,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal conclude d that in the unusual circumstances it was not reasonable for the payment for the fire compliance works or the AOV work to be made to the Respondent in advance of the work being carried out.”
“The Respondent did not adduce evidence to show what the cost of this work was due to be carried out... The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Notice remained in force in its original form, or that if it did, the RTM company with responsibility for this work intended to carry out the proposed works.”
“The Tribunal was struck by the absence of witness evidence from the managing agent (HS) who had issued the demands which were challenged or from the Respondent. Such a witness could have explained the physical layout of the entrance to the flat (and other flats in the Building) and attempted to relate that to the lease plan at the date of the grant of the lease and at the date of the service charge demand. On this issue the absence of any evidence from a witness whose evidence could be cross examined or assessed was noteworthy, given the resources available to the Respondent described by Mr Gifford as a landlord with some 136 properties. There was no satisfactory explanation for the absence of such evidence.”
“It was extremely unfortunate the existence of the acquisition of the right to manage by Hereford RTM Company Limited was not referred to by the Respondents or its representatives at an earlier stage in these proceedings.”
“The Tribunal found it unusual that the contact details or qualifications of Soteria Partners were not available. This was particularly significant as they were due to charge £7057.00 contract administration fees.”
“It was a technical point to take against a litigant in person and does not address the substance of the concerns raised by him.”
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.