HAV/23UE/LSC/2025/0604 — service charge decision
In HAV/23UE/LSC/2025/0604, decided 10 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 29 and others at Fitzalan House, Park Road, Gloucester, GL1 1LW and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 29 and others at Fitzalan House, Park Road, Gloucester, GL1 1LW
Decision date: 10 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Peak Estates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024) | £27,403.25 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Historic neglect |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £11,390.76 | £11,390.76 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“ALL the costs (whether met from reserves or from in-year service charge demands) relating to roof works and any resultant repairs, including redecoration, prior to and including the eventual completion of roof works in 2025 should not be charged to the Applicants, but should be borne by the developer/freeholder”
“ALL the costs for replacing or repairing communal doors to make them Fire Safety compliant should be borne by the Freeholder, and if already paid should be refunded to the Applicants.”
“the costs associated with the leak from the large water cistern, including any secondary damage and costs such as dehumidifiers should NOT be borne by the Applicants, and if already paid should be refunded.”
“the costs associated with the leak by the meters, including any secondary damage and costs such as dehumidifiers, and including the later costs of amending the original pipework should NOT be borne by the Applicants”
“the Tribunal finds that the building insurance premium charged is reasonable and payable by the Applicants.”
“The Tribunal does not regard this as credible. The original invoice describes the water 'blasting out of an unconnected 50mm overflow which has never been piped through to the drains'. The Tribunal considers that an effective overflow is an essential safeguard and finds its absence to be yet another example of the poor standard and monitoring/checking of the original conversion works, which should have been put in place by a competent developer when commissioning the system, and properly maintained.”
“it was unreasonable to believe that so many defects could occur to well-constructed and fitted fire doors within such a short period of time since the building was converted”
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.