HAV/45UC/LSC/2025/0738 — service charge decision
In HAV/45UC/LSC/2025/0738, decided 5 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 1 St Augustine Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex, BN17 5NG and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1 St Augustine Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex, BN17 5NG
Decision date: 5 May 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2023-24) | — | £250 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges | £30,576 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £300 | £20 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £575 | £250 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £750 | £250 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that the respondent did not comply with the consultation requirements of s.20 LTA 1985 with regard to the Back Roof Works. Although the Statement of Estimates gave the lessees the requisite 30 days to provide observations, that period was cut short the very next day, and the contract was let during this 30-day period.”
“The sum demanded for the Electrical Works is not payable by the applicants as a service charge and it is not reasonable under s.19(2) LTA 1985.”
“the rate claimed for applying 3 strips of tape (£300) and redecorating joinery (£575) were unreasonably high, in the light of the work done, as shown in the photographs.”
“the rate claimed for applying 3 strips of tape (£300) and redecorating joinery (£575) were unreasonably high, in the light of the work done, as shown in the photographs.”
“The rate claimed (£750) for touching up the communal areas was objectively unreasonable based on the work done, as seen in the photographs.”
“The Tribunal was concerned that the respondent appeared to have taken steps to commence major works, including demanding significant sums of money from leaseholders, in the knowledge that the RTM would, in all likelihood, take effect within 3 months of the ad hoc demand.”
“The Tribunal was also concerned about the managing agent's conduct in relation to the electrical works in February 2025, in the face of an impending RTM company acquisition.”
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.