HAV/21UC/LSC/2024/0618 — service charge decision
In HAV/21UC/LSC/2024/0618, decided 20 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 28 disputed service charge items at The Church, 16 Ceylon Place, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 3JF and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: The Church, 16 Ceylon Place, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 3JF
Decision date: 20 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Harper Stone Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2021-2022) | £2,511 | £2,008.80 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2022-2023) | £2,733.76 | £2,187.01 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Management fees (2023-2024) | £2,922.78 | £2,338.22 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £576 | £288 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £2,600 | £1,950 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £168 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | £524.95 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | £456 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | £288 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | £456 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £220.80 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £216 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £456 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-2023) | £96 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-2023) | £540 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2023) | £324 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2023) | £408 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £120 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £10,810 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £816 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £750 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-2024) | £348 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £3,744 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021-2022) | £1,845 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022-2023) | £2,590 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023-2024) | £1,950 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2023-2024) | £32,236.68 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determined that the appropriate course was to reduce the cost by 20%, so £1633.51 overall.”
“The Tribunal determined that the appropriate course was to reduce the cost by 20%, so £1633.51 overall.”
“The Tribunal determined that the appropriate course was to reduce the cost by 20%, so £1633.51 overall.”
“the Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the work invoiced in respect of the flue was undertaken in response to the evidence advanced by the Applicants that it was not. On the balance of the evidence, the Tribunal determines that the boiler flue was not dealt with”
“the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course was to reduce the cost as payable through service charges by 25%, giving an amount allowed for this invoice of £1950.00.”
“the cost was not reasonable at all and should be disallowed in full. The Tribunal agreed that there was an obvious hazard created and hence the attempted solution was not an appropriate one.”
“The Tribunal does not consider from the evidence that the management was overall of a reasonable standard.”
“The Tribunal finds that in respect of this particular distinctive and rather more difficult than average Property with its particular features, there ought to have been a clearer and planned approach sooner and a systematic one to gutter checking and clearance from much sooner than approximately Spring 2023.”
“The Tribunal determines that a solely reactive approach and the lack of any systematic one was not reasonable and marked a failing in management.”
“The Tribunal found that the freeholder and its agent had been less clear than they usefully could have been prior to the hearing as to the loans made by the freeholder and the approach to them.”
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.