HAV/29UG/LIS/2025/0012 — service charge decision
In HAV/29UG/LIS/2025/0012, decided 23 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 8 Heritage Court, 74 Darnley Road, Gravesend, Kent DA11 0SE and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 8 Heritage Court, 74 Darnley Road, Gravesend, Kent DA11 0SE
Decision date: 23 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: PMUK.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2019-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | £240 | £0 | Reduced | Duplication of charges |
| Other charges (2019-2023) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal is satisfied that PMUK was carrying out its role as the managing agent; this is supported by the emails, service demands, and the provision of a certified account”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that roof works were carried out, and that the RTM's actions in relation to the repairs were reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied, due to the certified accounts and the presence of invoices in the trial bundle from Higham Garden Services, that garden maintenance was carried out.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied, due to the certified accounts, the 24/01/19 minutes recording the use of health and Safety survey and electrical testing, the invoices from Nexco (UK) Ltd, that health and safety work was carried out.”
“The Administration Charge in the sum of £240.00 as seen on the Respondent's Service Charge Statement seems to be a duplicate of the £240.00 charged within 2020 Service Charge accounts.”
“Applicant has not demonstrated that the PDC collection fees are recoverable through the service charge.”
“The Tribunal was disappointed at the failure of the Respondent to attend the hearing and considered that her non-attendance amounted to unreasonable conduct.”
“The Applicant has not specified the unreasonable behaviour it relies on.”
“There were some invoices supporting the certified accounts; there was no useful schedule cross-referencing the invoices to the relevant certified accounts.”
“Ms Buparai had not seen Mr Young's skeleton before she arrived at the Tribunal on the day of the hearing.”
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.