HAV/43UE/LBC/2025/0618 — service charge decision
In HAV/43UE/LBC/2025/0618, decided 1 September 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Lower Minnickfold Place, Anstie Lane, Dorking, Surrey RH5 4LP and found largely for the landlord: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Lower Minnickfold Place, Anstie Lane, Dorking, Surrey RH5 4LP
Decision date: 1 September 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Works not necessary |
| Repairs & maintenance (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Estoppel or prior agreement |
| Other charges (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Estoppel or prior agreement, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2025) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has not demonstrated that the Respondents are in breach of the lease”
“the Tribunal is satisfied this allegation of breach of Clause 2(9) is, therefore, not made out”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no breach of the covenant as alleged”
“the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated any breach of Clause 2(10)”
“the Tribunal finds the Applicant has not demonstrated a breach of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule”
“he has provided no evidence to support that assertion, and the Tribunal gives particular weight to this failure”
“the Tribunal found Mr Puckett not to be wholly straightforward in answering the questions asked by Mr Withers. He failed to answer all questions directly, and was evasive at times, for example in relation to questions about the damp report he had commissioned from Alpine Survey which he had refused to disclose to the Respondents, and about whether it was him in the photographs exhibited to Mrs Morton's witness statement showing him accessing or peering into the Respondents' garden areas.”
“The Tribunal also found in general terms that Mr Puckett's whole approach to his neighbours to be abrasive, often unnecessarily combative and overbearing.”
“The Tribunal found Mr Puckett's credibility was damaged by the fact he had been offered but had refused an opportunity to inspect Lower Minnickfold Place in September 2025 to check that the specified works had been carried out, yet in oral evidence although he accepted photographs and invoices showed works had been undertaken said he could not be certain they had been done in the correct way, and therefore took the view they were in breach of the lease.”
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.