HAV/43UG/LSC/2025/0745 — service charge decision
In HAV/43UG/LSC/2025/0745, decided 9 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 14, Old Auction House, 49 Guildford Street, Chertsey, Surrey and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 14, Old Auction House, 49 Guildford Street, Chertsey, Surrey
Decision date: 9 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022) | £22.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £165.04 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £122.47 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2023) | £1,677 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2025) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicant was not permitted to deduct the sum of £750 from her service charge demand in 2022 because clause 9 of her lease agreement prevented her from doing so.”
“the service charges demanded for 'intercom callouts', 'works to shutters' and 'decorating after leak' totalling £310.11 are not payable by the Applicant”
“as to the 'works to shutters', she explained that there are no shutters in the communal areas and she suspected that the shutters were located in another building.”
“'decorating after leak' was not attributed to any specific communal area.”
“the Tribunal is not satisfied that four separate charges of £120, said to arise from correspondence, are reasonable... Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that the sum of £1,197 for debt recovery action has been adequately particularised or justified”
“there was no clause permitting the establishment of a reserve fund... the freeholder cannot demand such payments”
“A further case management issue arose whereby the Tribunal had not received the Hearing Bundle; this was because the Applicant had not received the Respondent's statement of case as directed. On 7 April 2026, Judge Rai issued further directions (April Directions) for a final hearing and made an unless order debarring the Respondent from taking further part in the proceedings. The Respondent did not comply with that order either.”
“The Tribunal has also taken into account its findings and the Respondent's lack of engagement in correspondence and, indeed, in these proceedings.”
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.