HAV/29UE/LSC/2025/0632 — service charge decision
In HAV/29UE/LSC/2025/0632, decided 13 August 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Chalets 16, 24, 41, 67, 68, 81, 86, 89, 96, 109, 110, 137, Kingsdown Park Holiday Village, Upper Street, Kingsdown, Deal, Kent and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Chalets 16, 24, 41, 67, 68, 81, 86, 89, 96, 109, 110, 137, Kingsdown Park Holiday Village, Upper Street, Kingsdown, Deal, Kent
Decision date: 13 August 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Shearbarn Holiday Park Limited (SHPL).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2025) | £22,085 | £22,085 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the level of cost for effective management of a site of this size is reasonable”
“The Applicants have not shown that the costs are unreasonable, the Tribunal therefore determines that the costs are reasonable and payable.”
“The Tribunal considered that it was reasonable for the PO to spend relatively modest sums of money to protect the site and occupants”
“The Tribunal regards this to be a matter of de minimis but in any case, considered that the PO acted reasonably”
“The Tribunal regards this to be a matter of de minimis but in any case, the Applicant has not shown that diesel costs had been fraudulently included or that the Respondent has acted unreasonably.”
“the Applicant has not proven his case that this is not a prudent way for the Respondent to continue”
“The Tribunal would caution Mr Wordell as to the wisdom of trying to negotiate contracts on behalf of the Respondent which may interfere with their legitimate business aims and processes.”
“The Parties failed to agree a joint bundle as directed.”
“Ms Cattermole suggests that the request from the Applicants in these questions are merely a phishing exercise rather than an objective request for relevant information.”
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.