HAV/29UL/LSC/2025/0720 — service charge decision
In HAV/29UL/LSC/2025/0720, decided 15 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Sandgate Pavilions (Enbrook House, Shorncliffe House, Martello House), Encombe, Sandgate, Folkestone and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Sandgate Pavilions (Enbrook House, Shorncliffe House, Martello House), Encombe, Sandgate, Folkestone
Decision date: 15 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: LH Property Block Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2025) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £3,186 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2024) | £2,543 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £834 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2024) | £540 | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Administration charges (2025) | £337.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“no fees or costs attributed to AMSBM's appointment or any legal dispute arising out of that purported appointment… were to be found in the estimate demands sent in respect of y/e 31 December 2025 such that there was nothing for us to determine”
“the arrangement for payment of ISTA does not fall within the service charge demands, but is made in accordance with an ancillary agreement, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this matter”
“absent any evidence of alternative quotes that would suggest that the works could be done at much cheaper cost… we make no adjustment to the amount the Applicants are liable to pay”
“Absent any evidence from the Applicants in support of their submission, we make no adjustment to the amount the Applicants are liable to pay simply because LHPML engaged contractors from Maidstone or London rather than Folkestone.”
“There was no evidence that the window cleaning was not done to a reasonable standard… We make no adjustment to the amount the Applicants are liable to pay.”
“Whilst undoubtedly costs have been incurred which have not led to successful commissioning of the EV chargers at the Property, that does not in itself render the costs as unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in themselves.”
“Mr Cobrin has assisted the Respondent throughout and is an experienced managing agent. He ought to have recognised that much of the bundle was not fit for purpose or that relevant documents that the Tribunal would need to determine the application were missing.”
“The Respondent's Response is somewhat brief and cursory and comprises a 2-page letter dated 11 March 2026 [76-77].”
“For his part, Mr Cobrin had used intemperate and unprofessional language to a third party in his description of Mr Scrase. Mr Cobrin recognised this was inappropriate and apologised to the Applicants at the hearing.”
“The Applicants' general approach can be described as spending time searching for a 'smoking gun' to corroborate their misgivings about Board B.”
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.