HAV/45UG/LSC/2024/0616 — service charge decision
In HAV/45UG/LSC/2024/0616, decided 13 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Leasehold flats 15 to 23 Deers Leap, Haywards Heath and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Leasehold flats 15 to 23 Deers Leap, Haywards Heath
Decision date: 13 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: FirstPoint Property Service Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £864 | £126 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2025-26) | £924 | £126 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2025-26) | £126 | £126 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £400 | £400 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025-26) | £400 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The estimate charge of £864.00 31.03.25 whilst of academic interest only, now the actual has been provided, the tribunal finds as disproportionately high and determines £126.00 31.03.25 the same as the actual charge.”
“Similarly, the estimated charge of £924.oo 31.03.26 is determined at £126.00.”
“the actual figure for insurance was £126.00 which when divided by 22 equates to £11.45 per flat.”
“The revaluation fee of £400 equivalent to £18.18 per flat is allowed for the Y/E 31.03.25 but not the charge for the subsequent year of 31.03.26.”
“The tribunal also concurs that such a process should be three yearly not annually. The revaluation fee of £400 equivalent to £18.18 per flat is allowed for the Y/E 31.03.25 but not the charge for the subsequent year of 31.03.26.”
“The tribunal heard that insurance had not been charged prior to the year of the estimate of £864.00 31.03.25 was made and the subsequent actual charge of £126.00 31.03.26. This was conceded by the managing agent as an omission.”
“The Respondent noted that mis steps had taken place and that they were learning from the process”
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.