HAV/45UE/LBC/2025/0605 — service charge decision
In HAV/45UE/LBC/2025/0605, decided 30 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 23 Highdown Court, Forestfield, Furnace Green, Crawley and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 23 Highdown Court, Forestfield, Furnace Green, Crawley
Decision date: 30 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has breached Clause 2(6) of the lease by failing to renew, repair, uphold, support, maintain, cleanse and keep the Property in good and substantial repair and condition including all glass.”
“the exterior wood and iron work have not been painted every fourth year, which, therefore, in addition to amounting to a failure to repair is a breach of Clause 2(7)”
“The Tribunal determines that the Respondent has breached Clause 2(9) of the lease by failing to respond to the Applicant's solicitors' correspondence of 5 June 2024 which requested he give access to the Applicant within 21 days.”
“The Tribunal determines that the Respondent is in breach of Clause 2(10) by failing to provide to the Applicant a copy of a certificate and policy of insurance for the Property by 26 June 2024 as demanded.”
“The Tribunal makes no finding as to breach of Clause 2(17)... the Applicant has produced no documentary evidence supporting its claims as regards to illegal or immoral activities alleged to have taken place at the property.”
“the Applicant has produced no documentary evidence supporting its claims as regards to illegal or immoral activities alleged to have taken place at the property. Specific claims are made by the Applicant that persons unknown had accessed the property and undertaken fraudulent credit card claims/online transactions and other criminal activity. However, no supporting evidence has been produced to substantiate this claim.”
“Nor has the Applicant produced copies of reports or statements from other residents either about the condition of the Property and its impact on them, the congregation of youths around the Property, or the reduction in value of neighbouring property all of which are claimed to amount to a breach of Clause 2(17). The Tribunal is satisfied that if such complaints had been made, it would have been a straightforward matter for the Applicant to produce them, or a witness statement from occupiers of neighbouring properties that are said to have been impacted, but it has not.”
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.