HAV/29UL/LSC/2025/0646 — service charge decision
In HAV/29UL/LSC/2025/0646, decided 3 February 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flat 6 Aspect 69A Seabrook Road, CT21 5QW and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 6 Aspect 69A Seabrook Road, CT21 5QW
Decision date: 3 February 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Egan Property Management (EPM) / Mrs Melita Godden.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £4,587.43 | £1,374.51 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £8,379.09 | £8,157.01 | Reduced | Demand formally invalid |
| Major works (2024-25) | £35,000 | £27,000 | Reduced | Demand formally invalid |
| Utilities (2024) | £6,000 | £3,291.24 | Reduced | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2024) | £2,800 | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £4,863.58 | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £2,666 | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We find that the sum of £1,374.51 is payable by the leaseholders in respect of the Stair Glass Replacement of which the Applicants' contribution would be £148.45.”
“once demanded, we consider the fees incurred to be reasonable... Neither sum is payable until a valid demand is served accompanied by a statutory Summary of Rights and Obligations.”
“the Applicants' contribution towards the qualifying works under the Second Consultation would be £2,724.30 (based on 10.09% contribution towards £27,000)... Neither sum is payable until a valid demand is served accompanied by a statutory Summary of Rights and Obligations.”
“we conclude that the Applicants' contribution towards the electrical works in the period 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024 would be £332.09 (based on 10.09% contribution towards £3,291.24).”
“There was no evidence put forward that supported the submission that there have been accounting errors... We make no deduction as to the amount payable by the Applicants.”
“We note our disapproval if Mrs Godden had annotated the KFRS Schedule of Deficiencies with red text detailing the remedial action taken. Evidence should never be amended. Mrs Godden should have exhibited the KFRS audit and provided a copy of further evidence showing that KFRS accepted the deficiencies had been remedied or provided a witness statement detailing the steps the Respondent has taken.”
“We were concerned by Mrs Godden's submission that costs are demanded on an ad hoc basis rather than in accordance with the terms of the lease, but that has been the manner in which matters have been managed by the Respondent since it took over the management of the Building and the residents including the Applicants have not raised concerns regarding that. We also note that 'demands for payment' are served without a proper breakdown of the costs nor accompanied by the prescribed statutory information. We did not find Mrs Godden gave a convincing explanation as to why, and she appeared unclear about matters ordinarily to be expected of a professional managing agent.”
“Both parties had prepared poorly for the hearing. Navigating both parties' bundles was difficult, there was little or no common ground to be found giving rise to separate bundles. There was a complete lack of reliable, contemporary evidence from the Applicants to show that works could have been undertaken at lower cost.”
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.