HAV/29UN/LIS/2025/0021 — service charge decision
In HAV/29UN/LIS/2025/0021, decided 12 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 4 Sussex Court, Sussex Gardens, Westgate-on-Sea, CT8 8BB and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4 Sussex Court, Sussex Gardens, Westgate-on-Sea, CT8 8BB
Decision date: 12 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Clever Property Management (CPM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023) | £3,753.40 | £3,753.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-2024) | £1,593.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2023) | £82.44 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicant is liable to pay a 1/5th contribution towards the costs that were demanded in advance by way of the estimate service charge demand dated 6 January 2023 in the sum of £3753.40”
“given the Applicant's solicitors' failure to comply with the correct pre-action protocol, and its failure to evidence the administration charge demands dated 29 November 2023 and 23 August 2024, we find that these administration charges are not payable.”
“There is no evidence of any invoice from the agents to the Applicant for the cost of the arrears' letters. Indeed, it is unlikely the Applicant did 'incur' any such costs.”
“The Applicant had instructed solicitors at all times, but the preparation of the Claim and the evidence bundle was to a poor standard. There were errors in the amount claimed that only came to light during the hearing.”
“Both letters give Mr Leedham's email address, and we are of the view that they were therefore sent by a Partner in the firm. Mr Leedham should be aware of the existence of PAPDC.”
“The vast majority of the work was undertaken by a Grade A fee earner without delegation and despite this not being a particularly complex case. The amount claimed as 'Legal Fees' was confirmed by Ms Szymanska, having taken instructions, to be incorrect. There was no evidence to show the extent of the reserved property that the Respondent was being asked to contribute towards the costs of repairing and redecorating, until the Tribunal requested it.”
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.