HAV/45UH/LUS/2025/0003 — service charge decision
In HAV/45UH/LUS/2025/0003, decided 1 October 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Stoke Abbott Court, Stoke Abbott Road, Worthing, West Sussex and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Stoke Abbott Court, Stoke Abbott Road, Worthing, West Sussex
Decision date: 1 October 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Housemartins Management Ltd (preceded by Alexander Faulkner Partnership).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-2025) | £72,187 | £61,444 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024-2025) | £17,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024-2025) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The principal difficulty with the Applicant's argument is that the figure of £44,187 derived solely from Mr Selmes' oral evidence related to ground rent monies. Section 94 is concerned only with accrued uncommitted service charges held at the acquisition date.”
“No loan agreement, statement of account, repayment schedule or other contemporaneous documentation was produced to support the existence, terms or operation of the alleged loan.”
“the Respondent failed to establish that they represented 'costs incurred' before the acquisition date within the meaning of section 94, or that they reduced the amount of accrued uncommitted service charges held on that date.”
“the determination of the application was significantly hampered by the Respondent's persistent failure to comply with case management directions and to provide proper information.”
“the Tribunal was not provided with the clear and coherent documentary evidence that had long been sought.”
“the Tribunal had given Mr Selmes no less than four opportunities to produce supporting documentation - directions made on 11 February 2026, 22 September 2026, 25 June 2026 and 29 July 2026 were not complied with and there was no credible evidence of a loan agreement.”
“The Tribunal found the Respondent's evidence on these matters to be unsatisfactory.”
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.