HAV/18UB/LSC/2024/0605 — service charge decision
In HAV/18UB/LSC/2024/0605, decided 17 February 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at Flat 2, Holmes Court, Russell Street, Sidmouth, Devon and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 2, Holmes Court, Russell Street, Sidmouth, Devon
Decision date: 17 February 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023-24) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £381.05 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Insurance not market tested |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicant did not know the sum he already held, the Applicant did not demonstrate that any service charges were actually payable”
“the Tribunal was not satisfied overall that the service charges demanded from the Respondent were properly payable given the wider matters related to the policy. Neither could the Tribunal determine what any appropriate premium for an appropriate policy was.”
“That was all rather surprising where the Applicant has issued proceedings on the basis that sums were due to him and constitutes an obvious flaw in his case.”
“The complete lack of apparent accounting and identification of the sums paid by the Respondent over the years which were entitled to be expended and how much there is that has been paid by the Respondent which ought to be retained is very troubling and runs entirely contrary to how service charge funds are required to be dealt with.”
“Given that sums paid in respect of service charges are held on trust by the landlord or its agent, the duties applicable to all trustees arise. There is no sense of the Applicant being aware of those and still less that they have been complied with.”
“A party bringing a claim would do well to consider carefully any entitlement to the sums claimed before the issue of proceedings, indeed that might be consider a basic necessity.”
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.