HAV/43UM/LSC/2025/0785 — service charge decision
In HAV/43UM/LSC/2025/0785, decided 13 September 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at Flat 1 Stadium House, Walton Road, Woking, GU21 5DW and found largely for the leaseholder: 16 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1 Stadium House, Walton Road, Woking, GU21 5DW
Decision date: 13 September 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Eagerstates Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £2,209.08 | £1,435.90 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £4,596.32 | £2,987.61 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £5,315.32 | £3,454.96 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £7,218 | £4,691.70 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £7,433.04 | £4,831.48 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2025-26) | £7,804.69 | £5,073.05 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2026-27) | £8,037.26 | £5,224.22 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2024-25) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2025-26) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Gardening & grounds (2026-27) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2019-20) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2023-24) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Historic neglect, No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £528 | £528 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025-26) | £550 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2026-27) | £575 | £287.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden. The Tribunal was provided with insufficient evidence regarding either the process by which the insurance had been procured or the reasons why the resulting premiums represented a reasonable outcome.”
“The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden. The Tribunal was provided with insufficient evidence regarding either the process by which the insurance had been procured or the reasons why the resulting premiums represented a reasonable outcome.”
“The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden. The Tribunal was provided with insufficient evidence regarding either the process by which the insurance had been procured or the reasons why the resulting premiums represented a reasonable outcome.”
“The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden. The Tribunal was provided with insufficient evidence regarding either the process by which the insurance had been procured or the reasons why the resulting premiums represented a reasonable outcome.”
“The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden. The Tribunal was provided with insufficient evidence regarding either the process by which the insurance had been procured or the reasons why the resulting premiums represented a reasonable outcome.”
“The Respondent has failed to discharge that burden. The Tribunal was provided with insufficient evidence regarding either the process by which the insurance had been procured or the reasons why the resulting premiums represented a reasonable outcome.”
“It appears to the Tribunal that the Respondent has treated the Applicant, the Tribunal and the Tribunal's procedures throughout the course of this application with a significant degree of disregard.”
“the Tribunal finds in the circumstances that it is just, equitable, and reasonable to determine that the Respondent shall not seek to recover the costs incurred in relation to these proceedings (not that it is fathomable that these would be costs of note given the Respondent has not participated at all in the proceedings) from the Applicant as part of the service charge, or from the Applicant by way of any administration charge.”
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.