HAV/21UC/LBC/2025/0600 — service charge decision
In HAV/21UC/LBC/2025/0600, decided 9 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 15-22 South Cliff, Eastbourne, Sussex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 15-22 South Cliff, Eastbourne, Sussex
Decision date: 9 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has made openings in the boundary of the Property (flat 15) and has cut and/or maimed a structural part of the Building by making holes in the interior wall of flat 15 and the exterior wall of the Building and installing the white and black pipes detailed above.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has made structural alterations to flat 15 by removing a load bearing wall and installing an RSJ beam... We also find that the Respondent made structural alterations to both flats 15 and 22 by installing a new staircase to connect the two.”
“we are not satisfied that, by reason of the matters relied on by the Applicants, the Respondent has breached the covenant in Schedule 4 paragraph 8.2. In our view, the works undertaken by the Respondent are not works which make any alteration to the elevation of the Property.”
“We find that the Respondent has lived at flat 15 while floors (other than kitchen or bathroom) have not been covered in good quality carpet and underlay.”
“In respect of Schedule 4, paragraph 12, we are not satisfied that the covenant has been breached. That covenant requires the tenant to notify defects for which the Landlord may be responsible under this Lease or any law. In the absence of any such responsibility, the obligation to notify does not arise.”
“the unusual feature of this case is the number of leaks that have happened over such a prolonged period. In our view, it is this feature that has caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of flat 15a.”
“At various stages throughout the hearing Mr Rose attempted to make statements/submissions on the issues but he was reminded that he had been barred and could only observe.”
“The Respondent did not produce a witness statement, in breach of the Tribunal's Directions dated 9 April 2025.”
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.