HAV/43UB/LSC/2025/0790 — service charge decision
In HAV/43UB/LSC/2025/0790, decided 22 September 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 38 disputed service charge items at 25 St Georges Lodge, Queens Road, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0AB and reached a mixed result: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 25 St Georges Lodge, Queens Road, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0AB
Decision date: 22 September 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: IGCS Limited (Ian Grove).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020) | — | £132.28 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2021) | — | £123.56 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2022) | — | £111.43 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2023) | — | £124.62 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2024) | — | £136.70 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2025) | — | £124.42 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Not payable under the lease |
| Cleaning (2020) | — | £3,615 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2021) | — | £4,677 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | — | £4,612 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023) | — | £4,588.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024) | — | £4,109 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2025) | — | £3,357 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | — | £14,775.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | — | £10,620.29 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | — | £8,978.83 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | — | £11,085.87 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | — | £12,535.98 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | — | £11,097.40 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020) | — | £1,654.55 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £3,628.76 | £3,137.45 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £3,133.77 | £2,886.25 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £3,628.76 | £3,168.77 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £4,787.39 | £4,145.03 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2025) | £6,750.91 | £4,587.14 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | — | £306 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | — | £738 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | — | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | — | £187.20 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | — | £240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2025) | — | £53 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2025) | £1,496.40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Demand formally invalid |
| Other charges (2020) | — | £636 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2020) | — | £177.22 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2021) | — | £567.28 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | — | £722.44 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023) | — | £872.97 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024) | — | £770.57 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2025) | — | £775.82 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The 15% management charge should have been calculated accordingly in the service charge years in question.”
“The 15% management charge should have been calculated accordingly in the service charge years in question.”
“The 15% management charge should have been calculated accordingly in the service charge years in question.”
“The 15% management charge should have been calculated accordingly in the service charge years in question.”
“The 15% management charge should have been calculated accordingly in the service charge years in question.”
“The 15% management charge should have been calculated accordingly in the service charge years in question.”
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.