HAV/21UH/LSC/2025/0703 — service charge decision
In HAV/21UH/LSC/2025/0703, decided 16 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 14 Risingholme Court, High Street, Heathfield, East Sussex, TN21 8GB and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 14 Risingholme Court, High Street, Heathfield, East Sussex, TN21 8GB
Decision date: 16 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Retirement Property Services.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020-21) | £3,370.41 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £9,276.88 | £8,550.31 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Staffing & concierge (2021-22) | £19,470.90 | £19,470.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £78,036.21 | £78,036.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £87,711.82 | £87,711.82 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022-23) | £20,970 | £20,970 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £85,977.08 | £85,977.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2023-24) | £21,575 | £21,575 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-24) | £1,875.34 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Under s.20B LTA 1985, no service charge is payable in respect of relevant costs incurred by the Respondent prior to 16 October 2022. This applies to the whole of the 2020-21 service charges.”
“As to the 2021-22 service charge year, s.20B LTA 1985 only 'bit' on so much the costs incurred by the landlord which were incurred before 16 October 2022. According to paras 13-14 of the Respondent's statement of case, this permitted recovery of £8,550.31 of costs, but precluded recovery of £1,172.00 of costs.”
“the Tribunal finds the Applicant is liable to contribute by way of service charges to the relevant costs of catering in para 25 above. They were payable under the lease and reasonably incurred for the purposes of s.19(1) LTA 1985.”
“the Tribunal finds the Applicant is liable to contribute by way of service charges to the relevant costs of catering in para 25 above. They were payable under the lease and reasonably incurred for the purposes of s.19(1) LTA 1985.”
“the Tribunal finds the Applicant is liable to contribute by way of service charges to the relevant costs of catering in para 25 above. They were payable under the lease and reasonably incurred for the purposes of s.19(1) LTA 1985.”
“the Tribunal finds the Applicant is liable to contribute by way of service charges to the relevant costs of catering in para 25 above. They were payable under the lease and reasonably incurred for the purposes of s.19(1) LTA 1985.”
“Regrettably, the Tribunal has been unable to reconcile these figures with the figures given in the Respondent's service charge demands.”
“Unfortunately, the Respondent did not explain how these concessions affect the Applicant's liability to pay a service charges in the 2021-22 service charge year.”
“It is also unclear why the agents paid the audit fees in advance, when there were already concerns about the substantial fee increase.”
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.