Home/Services by area/Torquay/Service charge disputes in Torquay

Service Charge Disputes in Torquay

2 published tribunal decisions from in and around Torquay, with what each one actually decided.

A timber-clad residential block under management
Local authority
Torbay Council
Service
Service charge disputes
County
Devon
Published decisions
2 tribunal decisions
From our Plymouth office
Approx. 33 miles

Service Charge Cases Decided in and Around Torquay

Flats 1 to 34 Seaway Court, Seaway Lane

HAV/00HH/LVT/2025/000125 September 2025

The building
34 flats, the freehold owned by a company owned and controlled by the 34 leaseholders, each flat being a member.
What was applied for
Variation of all 34 leases under section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, to expand the definition of the costs of management of the estate.
The figures
34 flats and 34 leases. One objection, 29 consents. Decided on the papers.

What Happened

The existing clause read only the costs of management of the Estate. Legal advice indicated a tribunal might read that narrowly, covering routine management but not substantial works or improvements. The tribunal's own directions criticised the first draft, and a revised draft was circulated to all leaseholders.

What the Tribunal Held

Varied in the revised terms. One leaseholder objected but set out no basis, no prejudice and no alternative wording, and the tribunal found no evidence of prejudice. It held that the object of conducting improvement works with certainty over how they will be agreed and charged back cannot satisfactorily be achieved without varying all the leases, and accepted that the existing drafting left an element of uncertainty over what charges are caught and, perhaps more importantly, what charges are therefore not caught. The varied clause lists the heads of expenditure including improvements, with improvements only after a vote of all leaseholders recording a majority in favour.

What it means for a block here. A bare costs of management clause can be widened by variation to cover improvements, but a bare objection carries no weight. A leaseholder who opposes must set out the prejudice or propose alternative wording.

Apartments 2 and 4 Marine Palms, Warren Road

CHI/00HH/LSC/2022/0049 and 005028 October 2022

The building
A former hotel converted to 13 self-contained flats, purchased around 2006 and converted in 2007 with a completion certificate in 2008. Built on a hillside, with elevated timber-decked terraces facing the sea, storage backing onto a retaining wall in a basement void, and an underground car park.
What was applied for
A determination under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 of service charges over four years, principally the cost of replacing the terraces and works to the damp basement, with section 20C and paragraph 5A applications.
The figures
13 flats. Terrace works flagged at about 90,000 pounds in 2019 and completed January 2022. Service charge shares 7.85 and 5.97 per cent. Only sum disallowed 162.92 pounds.
Costs
Both applications refused. The applicants were wholly unsuccessful on the payability of the costs of substance, and the tribunal held the respondent had been substantially successful and should not have to pay its own costs when the case against it was without legal foundation. The landlord's reasonable costs may therefore be treated as relevant costs.

What Happened

Leaseholders had reported cracked tiles, leaks and damp from 2010 onwards. In 2020 a council environmental health officer found the terraces of three apartments unsafe, a structural engineer closed a number of them, and an improvement notice classed them as category 1 hazards. The leaseholders' surveyor reported that the terraces had failed far earlier than expected because of inadequate materials and poor site practice.

What the Tribunal Held

The leaseholders lost on everything of substance. On inherent defect the tribunal was clear that latent defect presents no form of defence, the lease requiring the landlord to repair and entitling it to charge the reasonable costs. It held it would be in error to find an implied term of a duty to maintain, the covenant being to repair and, unlike other covenants in the same schedule, not requiring inspection. On notice, applying O'Brien v Robinson, there was nothing to suggest the landlord had information that would put a reasonable man on enquiry before 2017. Even for the later period no loss was proved: on the expert's own ten-year lifespan the terraces needed replacing around 2017 or 2018, so it was inconceivable that any delay could have led to further loss. Only a 162.92 pound item failed, and only because it turned out to be a structural engineer's fee the landlord conceded. The tribunal stressed that neither applicant had obtained a survey before purchase.

What it means for a block here. Proving that a block was badly converted does not excuse leaseholders from paying to put it right. There is no inherent-defect defence, no implied duty to inspect beyond the lease, and a failed challenge can leave the landlord's costs recoverable through the service charge.

What We Do About Service Charge Disputes in Torquay

The Flats 1 to 34 Seaway Court, Seaway Lane decision above is the kind of thing this work is for. Service charge disputes in Torquay is part of a full management service, not a standalone product, and in practice it means:

  • Set out the disputed line, the evidence for it and what comparable cases here have held, in one place, before anyone applies.

How This Works, in General

The law here is the same in Torquay as it is anywhere in England, and it is set out in full on our service-charge-financial-management page rather than repeated on this one. What changes locally is above: the authority, the figures, and what the tribunal has actually done with cases nearby.

Everything else we do in the area is on the Torquay page, and the full matrix is at services by area.

Talk to Us About Your Building.