HAV/29UK/LSC/2024/0623 — service charge decision
In HAV/29UK/LSC/2024/0623, decided 19 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 22 Roman Court, High Street, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 5LW and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 22 Roman Court, High Street, Edenbridge, Kent, TN8 5LW
Decision date: 19 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPort Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2021) | £60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £1,625.17 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £8,481.63 | £5,366.58 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £10,049.19 | £9,902.22 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £10,641.09 | £10,641.09 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Although this appeared on the Statement of Account [556], there was no evidence of this ever having been demanded or the purpose of the administration charge.”
“Given the Applicant's predecessor in title had substantially part paid the 2021/22 service charge, and absent any evidence to suggest otherwise, we conclude that the sum was demanded and agreed by the predecessor such that we do not have jurisdiction to consider the Applicant's application in respect of this sum.”
“We accept Ms Batchelor's figures in full in which she calculates the leaseholder's contribution from 24 January 2023 to 31 August 2023 to be £5,366.58.”
“it became apparent that there had been a miscalculation in the Applicant's contribution towards the service charge for this period due to human error. We are satisfied that the correct amount should have been £9,902.22”
“we are not minded to make any adjustment in light of our findings above that the Applicant's submissions on the reasonableness of the charges are without merit.”
“Mr Cooper was candid in his oral evidence that the level of information concerning the service charge and the breakdown of the costs provided to residents of the Building was not as comprehensive as that ordinarily provided to leaseholders on other developments. No explanation was given for the differential treatment.”
“There was a general lack of explanation as to how costs had been incurred which the Applicant was entitled to and which the Respondent had been directed to provide, yet was only provided after the hearing itself by way of further submissions.”
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.