HAV/40UD/LSC/2025/0627 — service charge decision
In HAV/40UD/LSC/2025/0627, decided 14 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at 5 Mill Street Close, Mill Street, Wincanton, BA9 9AL and found largely for the leaseholder: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 5 Mill Street Close, Mill Street, Wincanton, BA9 9AL
Decision date: 14 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Compton Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £292.80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2024) | £480 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds the Respondent has not demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that the cost of £292.80 (including VAT) for drain clearance were costs reasonably incurred in the 2024 accounting year or at all.”
“the Tribunal finds these costs were not reasonably incurred by the Managing Agent, and are, therefore, not payable.”
“the Tribunal has given considerable weight to the Respondent's failure to produce any coherent evidence demonstrating that a report was made to Compton about a blocked drain outside number 5 requiring clearance and jet washing.”
“It appears that all that was done by the Managing Agents was to update Compton's website asking leaseholders not to park their vehicles [47]. The email from Curtis Butler produced by the Applicant states a letter was sent to 'the development' [109] but no evidence of such notification has been provided.”
“The Respondent also fails to deal with the Applicant's concern regarding an invoice being paid to what, according to the evidence from Companies House, appears to have been a dormant company between July 2020 and July 2023.”
“It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that the Respondent has produced no evidence to the Tribunal of the offer or when it was made. Nor has any evidence has been provided showing the costs sought by the Respondent under Rule 13.”
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.