HAV/21UC/LSC/2025/0609 — service charge decision
In HAV/21UC/LSC/2025/0609, decided 10 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Apartment 6, Sussex Mansions, Cornfield Terrace, Eastbourne, East Sussex and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 6, Sussex Mansions, Cornfield Terrace, Eastbourne, East Sussex
Decision date: 10 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Peter Sanders (director of managing agents).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022-2024) | £2,100 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2022-2024) | £1,487.01 | £186 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“On balance we are satisfied that for each of the years the insurance premium obtained and charged was reasonable and insurance that the landlord was entitled to determine was required.”
“We accept the evidence of Mr Sanders that the water used by the commercial restaurants is metered and they are charged for their own usage with the balance being charged as a service charge expense to the flats.”
“we prefer the evidence of Mr Sanders who will have visited more recently and find the lift did not extend to the basement and that the costs are correctly apportioned to the internal schedule.”
“We find that no demand has been issued for this sum and there is no proper breakdown of the amount... it is in our judgment an administration charge. As such it must be demanded and we are entitled to be satisfied that the sum claimed is reasonable.”
“The first three items claimed on 1 January 2022 are in our judgment items which were included or should have been included in respect of the previous court proceedings settled by the Applicant's mortgage lender and so are not payable.”
“We find that all of the sums claimed for each of the service charge years in dispute being 2022, 2023, 2024 and the budget for 2025 are reasonable and payable by the Applicant in the sums claimed.”
“We find that no demand has been issued for this sum and there is no proper breakdown of the amount. Whilst it is said to be contractual costs it is in our judgment an administration charge. As such it must be demanded and we are entitled to be satisfied that the sum claimed is reasonable.”
“However the Applicant has challenged these sums and Mr Sanders was unable to give a clear explanation of how the costs were incurred and what was covered. We note that we have seen no invoices or the like.”
“We observe until the court proceedings joined with this application there was no evidence of instruction of a solicitor.”
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.