HAV/24UP/LSC/2025/0608 — service charge decision
In HAV/24UP/LSC/2025/0608, decided 15 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, Austen House, Winchester and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, Austen House, Winchester
Decision date: 15 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Belgarum.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022-23) | £1,048 | £1,048 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Staffing & concierge (2022-23) | £4,867 | £4,867 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022-23) | £4,867 | £4,867 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022-23) | £4,845 | £4,845 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £1,121 | £1,121 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Staffing & concierge (2023-24) | £6,546 | £6,546 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2023-24) | £6,546 | £6,546 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-24) | £22,650 | £22,650 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-2025) | £1,841 | £1,841 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2024-2025) | £5,928 | £5,928 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2024-2025) | £5,928 | £5,928 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-2025) | £22,650 | £22,650 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal determines that the work undertaken to provide an audit is covered by the provision and that in the absence of any specific challenge on cost this item is payable in full under the lease”
“the tribunal following consideration of the lease determines this item is not payable because there is no lawful method of collection under the lease, so the amount payable is nil.”
“Given the work that has been done falls under the definition of 6.9 the costs incurred are payable in the absence of any contrary costs being provided.”
“the tribunal finds that it is appropriate to apportion costs to hours worked which is sensible and that the amount therefore is reasonable and payable.”
“the tribunal finds that unconditional dispensation should be granted for the totality of the roofing works … the tribunal considers the cost of these works reasonable and therefore payable in full.”
“Accountancy fees – as previous”
“Respondent says that the Applicant's challenges are vexatious”
“The tribunal does not see evidence that suggests the claims are vexatious but declines to make an order because the vast majority of the challenges have not been successful.”
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.