HAV/21UD/LSC/2025/0716 — service charge decision
In HAV/21UD/LSC/2025/0716, decided 16 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at 17a Silchester Mews, Silchester Road, St Leonards on Sea TN38 0JB and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 17a Silchester Mews, Silchester Road, St Leonards on Sea TN38 0JB
Decision date: 16 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Browood Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016/17) | £690.66 | £690.66 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017/18) | £724.24 | £724.24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/19) | £5,716.41 | £5,716.41 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2018/19) | £100 | £100 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019/20) | £4,883.01 | £4,883.01 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019/20) | £2,230.35 | £2,230.35 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | £3,082.42 | £3,082.42 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2019/20) | £18.50 | £18.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £300.82 | £300.82 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020/21) | £21.50 | £21.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £1,922.28 | £1,922.28 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022/23) | £2,526.22 | £2,526.22 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“2016/17 £690.66 [service charges incl. insurance rent]”
“2017/18 £724.24 [service charges incl. insurance rent]”
“2018/19 £5,716.41 [service charges incl. insurance rent]”
“2018/19 … £100 [administration charges]”
“The Tribunal therefore finds the Respondent is liable to pay a service charge of £4,883.01 in the 2019-20 service charge year in respect of the relevant costs of major works.”
“The Tribunal therefore finds the Respondent is liable to pay service charges of £2,230.35 as a contribution to the legal costs incurred in connection with the proceedings.”
“The documentation in the bundle does not suggest the Applicant applied the contractual service charge scheme during the relevant period.”
“This entirely conventional service charge regime ought to be familiar to any competent residential property manager.”
“None of these demands complied with either para 2 or para 4 of Sch.5 to the Lease.”
“Why such essential documents were omitted from a bundle running to over 1,000 pages was not explained.”
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.