This worked example follows the Eagerstates/Assethold case from those findings to payment. It also marks the parts that cannot be treated as general rules.
£3,326.77Principal ordered
£188.52Interest ordered
£551.00Costs ordered
£4,066.29Total ordered
Limits of this worked example
This record shows what was filed, argued and ordered. It does not show that debarment follows every default, that Eagerstates was the only possible defendant, that every signed document is ineffective or that the claimant’s wording will secure judgment in another case.
What happened, in order
Each entry is labelled by what its source proves. Defence points are paired with the response made. Messages open as shortened, pseudo-anonymized reconstructions.
Court record
The first FTT application set out the disputed charges
Two leaseholders applied for determinations covering the 2021/22 and 2022/23 service-charge years.
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
First-tier Tribunal
Date
4 July 2023
Subject
Application for a determination of service charges — [PROPERTY]
To whom it may concern,
Please find attached our application for a determination of liability to pay and the reasonableness of service charges.
We have also attached the lead applicant's lease, details of the participating leaseholders and a schedule identifying the charges in dispute.
A copy of this email will be sent to the managing agent and freeholder named in the application. All participating leaseholders have been copied in.
Please send us a payment link for the application fee.
Court record
The first decision reduced charges and ordered fee reimbursement
The FTT reduced or disallowed items, made a section 20C order and expressly ordered £300 reimbursement of tribunal fees within 28 days.
A refund was requested after the first FTT decision
The leaseholders asked Eagerstates to refund the sums they said followed from the FTT's findings. No response was received.
View the refund request email25 March 2024 · To: Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
Eagerstates
Date
25 March 2024
Subject
Service-charge account and FTT adjustments — [PROPERTY]
Dear [MANAGING AGENT],
Thank you for sending the invoices.
The accounts do not appear to recognise the First-tier Tribunal decision dated 19 January 2024, which is attached for reference. We have provided a calculation showing the adjustments to the historic accounts and the resulting credits.
Our calculation shows credits of £2,669.58 for [LEASEHOLDER A] and £4,004.38 for [LEASEHOLDER B]. Please check our workings, raise any specific concerns and apply the correct credits to the accounts.
We are willing to discuss the calculation by telephone or at a meeting so the accounts can be reconciled.
Court record
A second application addressed the next service-charge year
The later application concerned 2023/24 and produced directions for disclosure, schedules and witness evidence.
The applicants applied for debarment and followed it through
After disclosure directions were missed, the applicants filed an Order 1 application under Rule 9, chased its consideration and made further written submissions before the FTT debarred the respondent.
View the debarment application email16 July 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates
Date
16 July 2024
Subject
Order 1 application — [CASE REFERENCE]
Dear [CASE OFFICER],
Please find attached a completed Order 1 form. Please let us know if anything is unclear.
The application asks the tribunal to bar the respondent from further participation under Rule 9. The grounds state that directions required the respondent to provide the relevant service-charge accounts and estimates by 21 June 2024, but the applicants had not received them.
View the follow-up email5 August 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
First-tier Tribunal
Date
5 August 2024
Subject
Follow-up: Order 1 application — [CASE REFERENCE]
Dear [CASE OFFICER],
Please could you confirm whether the Order 1 application has been received and considered?
The completed form was sent on 16 July 2024.
View the further submission27 August 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates
Date
27 August 2024
Subject
Further submission on the debarment request — [CASE REFERENCE]
Dear Tribunal,
Please take the respondent's latest dates-to-avoid response into account when considering the debarment request.
The dates were supplied more than two months after they were requested, offered no availability in the periods listed and covered only two of the three months requested. We ask the tribunal to consider the delay, the lack of alternatives and the wider history of non-compliance when deciding the application.
Court record
The second decision reduced further service charges
Following the hearing, the FTT reduced or disallowed several 2023/24 items.
The FTT found unreasonable behaviour but refused Rule 13 costs
The later costs decision found unreasonable behaviour and made a section 20C order but refused Rule 13 costs.
View the costs filing email19 December 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates
Date
19 December 2024
Subject
Costs application: applicants' statement of case — [CASE REFERENCE]
Dear Tribunal and Respondent,
Please find attached the applicants' statement of case in support of the application for an order for costs under Rule 13.
Please let us know if there are any problems accessing the document.
Claimant's position
A repayment schedule was sent before the claim
The account was translated into lease-share sums and Eagerstates was asked to pay before the County Court claim was issued.
View the repayment request email17 January 2025 · To: Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
Eagerstates
Date
17 January 2025
Subject
Outstanding tribunal awards — [PROPERTY]
Dear [MANAGING AGENT],
The two tribunal decisions have not been recognised or reflected in the latest service-charge accounts, so the amounts remain outstanding.
Our schedule identifies adjustments for the three charge years and the tribunal-fee reimbursement. Applying the lease shares, we calculate £3,326.77 for [LEASEHOLDER A] and £4,990.16 for [LEASEHOLDER B].
Please recognise the decisions and apply the adjustments before issuing further accounts. Let us know if you need any further information.
View the final follow-up email7 April 2025 · To: Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
Dear [MANAGING AGENT],
Please provide the latest service-charge statement with the adjustments required by the FTT decisions.
If the adjustments are not shown, we intend to pursue the outstanding amounts in the County Court.
Court record
A fresh County Court money claim was issued
The pleaded principal was £3,326.77, supported by the FTT decisions and a calculation.
Defendant's position
Eagerstates relied on Termhouse and a signed statement
It said the FTT findings could not support this money claim and that a later signed statement recorded no dispute.
Defences and brief responses
Termhouse / wrong-route defence
Defence used
Eagerstates relied on Termhouse to say that the FTT's section 27A findings were declaratory and could not simply be enforced as a money judgment, so the County Court claim was said to use the wrong route.
How it was countered
The claimant accepted that legal limit. The claim was presented as a fresh County Court repayment claim, not CPR 70.5 enforcement of the FTT declarations. The FTT decisions were relied on as binding findings about the charges, while the express tribunal-fee payment order was identified separately. The final County Court order gives no reasons, so the result is not authority that this framing will always succeed.
Eagerstates relied on a statement signed during a property-sale process as confirmation that no dispute existed and argued that the claim could not continue.
How it was countered
The claimant answered with the document's wording and context: it post-dated the FTT decisions, was said not to be a settlement or release, and was signed in the circumstances described in the evidence. The court was asked to decide its effect. Because the final order gives no reasons, it does not establish that the statement was invalid or procured by duress.
Claimant's position
Mediation was scheduled, but Eagerstates did not attend
The Small Claims Mediation Service booked a telephone appointment. The claimant attended; Eagerstates did not, and HMCTS recorded the appointment as “Not Conducted”.
View the mediation appointment email9 June 2025 · From: Small Claims Mediation Service
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
Your telephone mediation appointment
Appointment date: 2 July 2025
Appointment time slot: 1pm to 3pm
A confidential telephone mediation appointment has been booked for this date and time slot. The mediator will call each party separately and try to help both parties reach an agreement before the case goes to court.
Be ready to receive the call from the beginning of the time slot. Where mediation is mandatory, non-attendance may be taken into account by the judge.
View the mediation outcome email2 July 2025 · From: Small Claims Mediation Service
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
From
Small Claims Mediation Service
Date
2 July 2025
Subject
Mediation appointment outcome: Not Conducted — [CASE REFERENCE]
Small claims mediation service appointment outcome
Status: Not Conducted
The mediation appointment did not go ahead because one or more parties did not attend. The claim has been updated to show that mediation did not take place and it will now proceed to a court hearing.
If you attended and spoke with the mediator during the scheduled appointment window, no further action is needed. The outcome will take your willingness to engage into account.
Claimant's position
The claimant answered both defence points in evidence
The witness statement accepted that section 27A findings are declaratory, explained the fresh claim and addressed the later signed document.
Court record
The defended claim was heard in person
The final hearing took place in a physical County Court. The claimant presented the repayment case and responses to Eagerstates' defences before the judge decided the claim.
Outcome without reasons
Judgment was entered for the claimant
The order recorded £3,326.77 principal, £188.52 interest and £551 costs, totalling £4,066.29.
Claimant's position
The order was sent to Eagerstates for payment
Eagerstates was sent the County Court order, the total due, payment instructions and a warning that enforcement would follow if the deadline was missed.
View the payment demand email7 January 2026 · To: Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
To
Eagerstates
Date
7 January 2026
Subject
County Court order — payment required [CASE REFERENCE]
Dear [MANAGING AGENT],
Please find attached confirmation of the recent County Court order requiring payment of £4,066.29 by 4pm on 19 January 2026.
Payment can be made using the account details supplied below:
[PAYMENT ACCOUNT DETAILS REMOVED]
If payment is not made by the date and time specified, we will seek enforcement, including a third-party debt order, at additional cost to you.
Recorded outcome
Payment was confirmed after a deadline-day reminder
A short reminder was sent on the due date. Eagerstates replied that afternoon with proof of payment, so no enforcement application was needed.
View Eagerstates' payment confirmation19 January 2026 · From: Eagerstates
Reconstructed and shortened from the email. Personal details, addresses, case references, account details, signatures, filenames and quoted email chains have been removed.
From
Eagerstates
Date
19 January 2026
Subject
Re: County Court order — payment required [CASE REFERENCE]
Good afternoon,
We have been advised to appeal this order.
However, in the meantime please find proof of payment attached.