HAV/40UG/LSC/2025/0821 — service charge decision
In HAV/40UG/LSC/2025/0821, decided 19 August 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Arlington House, All Saints Avenue, Margate, Kent and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Arlington House, All Saints Avenue, Margate, Kent
Decision date: 19 August 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Highdorn Co. Limited (part of Freshwater Group).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works | £5,329,883.30 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicant intends to award the contract for those works to GT CI Limited at a cost of £5,329,883.30 (inclusive of VAT and professional fees). It is said that this tender was the cheapest price of the 3 tenders submitted in the process.”
“the Tribunal finds all areas require repair or maintenance. The Tribunal bases this decision primarily on the expert reports and evidence submitted to the Tribunal by the experts but also on the basis of its own inspection.”
“the proposed refurbishment of the 25 original Category B, and the 10 Category B subset, leaseholders aluminium windows which the Tribunal finds are demised to those Category B, and Category B sub-set leaseholders under the terms of their respective leases.”
“The Applicants management fee [4941] and Suzanne Calvo's evidence showed considerable project management and engagement was to be required with the Respondent leaseholders and other stakeholders and therefore the fee a 4% was justified.”
“the professional fees negotiated down to 5% from an original 6% and the fee for the CDM at 0.5% was not controversial.”
“Flat 5B contribution percentage is corrected from 6.6% to read as 0.6%; Flat 5E contribution percentage is corrected from 76% to 0.76%; Flat 7G contribution percentage is corrected from no figure to 0.76%.”
“many of the arguments advanced were simply not sustainable.”
“there is force in the Applicant's submission that the Respondent's approach led to an increase in time and cost of the dealing with the application.”
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.