HAV/40UC/LSC/2025/0729 & others — service charge decision
In HAV/40UC/LSC/2025/0729 & others, decided 22 July 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at 17 The Esplanade, Burnham on Sea, Somerset and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 17 The Esplanade, Burnham on Sea, Somerset
Decision date: 22 July 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023) | £10,644 | £10,244 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £1,295.57 | £1,295.57 | conceded | — |
| Utilities (2023) | £48.44 | £48.44 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2024) | £6,235 | £1,056 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £2,031.55 | £1,901.11 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2024) | £226.44 | £226.44 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £84.50 | £84.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £1,399.56 | £1,399.56 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £6,285.60 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2024) | £116 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Utilities (2025) | £69 | £69 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2025) | £70 | £70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | £2,252.40 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines the sum of £6,000.00 of service costs as payable in respect of the Additional Works, in addition to the £5,300 in respect of the Initial Works, leaving a total of £11,300 of service costs payable in respect of the roofing works overall.”
“This item has therefore been both accepted (removing it from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in any event) and paid.”
“The Tribunal determines the sums in respect of all years to be both reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, and therefore payable (£48.44 in the 23/24 service charge year.”
“Being the balance of the £11,300 we find to be payable in respect of roofing works.”
“The Tribunal therefore determines that of the £2,031.11 sought in respect of 'Repairs and maintenance', £1,901.11 is payable.”
“The Tribunal determines the sums in respect of all years to be both reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, and therefore payable… £226.44 in the 24/25 year”
“The Applicant's approach to the roof works leaves a great deal to be desired. There is no specification of works anywhere, against which the Respondent might have sought a desktop quotation from other contractors (either at the time or in preparation for these proceedings). The quotations (labelled invoices) from Above & Beyond Construction are not clear nor easy to follow. The array of invoice numbers which appear in the Applicant's invoices to the Respondent only amplify this confusion.”
“The intransigence of both positions has not assisted in the early resolution or refinement of the issues which the Tribunal has had to determine.”
“the Applicant has seemingly sought to provide no more by way of documentation than it believes is strictly necessary, and has required the Respondent to physically attend at the Applicant's then registered office in order to inspect documents, with no facilities for copying the same.”
“The Tribunal does, however, accept that Mr Assender's use of the postnominals 'C. Build E MCABE' was improper. The Respondent's investigations have unearthed the fact that Mr Assender was no longer a member of the Chartered Institution of Building Engineers.”
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.