How one service-charge dispute reached a repayment judgment
Follow the preparation, arguments and outcome of one real case. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) applications named Assethold as respondent, with Eagerstates acting as managing agent. The later County Court repayment claim was brought against Eagerstates. Use the timeline for the full story or choose Claim, Defence, Hearing or Judgment above.
£3,326.77Main sum awarded (principal)
£188.52Interest ordered
£551.00Costs ordered
£4,066.29Total stated in the order
What you can learn from this case
Use the documents and calculations to understand how the case was prepared. This record shows what the parties filed and what the courts ordered. It does not prove that debarment follows every missed deadline, that Eagerstates was the only possible defendant, or that a signed statement will be ineffective in another case. The County Court order gives no reasons for the decision. The figures above follow the sealed County Court order.
Service Charge Guide is independent. It is not connected with or endorsed by Eagerstates, Assethold, HMCTS or the First-tier Tribunal. To suggest a factual correction, email [email protected].
What happened, in order
Labels distinguish court records, each party’s arguments and the recorded outcome. An argument made by a party is not necessarily a finding by the court.
Court record
Published decisionApplication date recorded in the sealed claim; original FTT application and decision checked.
The first FTT application set out the disputed charges
The applicants sought determinations covering 2021/22 and 2022/23 expenditure and the 2023/24 budget.
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
To
First-tier Tribunal
Date
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, the applicant information required by the form 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 applicants have been copied in.
Please send us a payment link for the application fee.
Court record
Published decisionPublished FTT decision: findings and £300 fee award.
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.
Case documentClaimant's copy of the refund request.
A refund was requested after the first FTT decision
The applicants asked Eagerstates to refund the sums they said followed from the FTT's findings.
Read the reconstructed refund request25 March 2024 · To: Eagerstates
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
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 a credit of £2,669.58 for [CLAIMANT]. Please check our workings, raise any specific concerns and apply the correct credit to the account.
We are willing to discuss the calculation by telephone or at a meeting so the accounts can be reconciled.
Court record
Published decisionPublished FTT decision: application history.
A second application addressed the next service-charge year
The later application concerned 2023/24 expenditure and estimated costs for 2024/25. The proceedings included directions for disclosure, schedules and witness evidence.
Published decisionPublished FTT decision: Assethold was debarred.
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 Assethold, the respondent.
Read the reconstructed debarment request16 July 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates (managing agent)
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
To
First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates (managing agent)
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.
Read the reconstructed follow-up email5 August 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
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.
Read the reconstructed further submission27 August 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates (managing agent)
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
To
First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates (managing agent)
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
Published decisionPublished FTT decision: findings for 2023/24.
The second decision reduced further service charges
Following the hearing, the FTT reduced or disallowed several 2023/24 items.
Court or tribunal documentFTT costs decision held by the claimant.
The FTT refused the Rule 13 costs application
A later costs decision made a section 20C order but refused the applicants' request for Rule 13 costs.
Read the reconstructed costs filing email19 December 2024 · To: First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates (managing agent)
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
To
First-tier Tribunal and Eagerstates (managing agent)
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
Case documentClaimant's repayment schedule and sent emails.
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.
Read the reconstructed repayment request17 January 2025 · To: Eagerstates
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
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 share, we calculate £3,326.77 for [CLAIMANT].
Please recognise the decisions and apply the adjustments before issuing further accounts. Let us know if you need any further information.
Read the reconstructed final follow-up7 April 2025 · To: Eagerstates
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
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
Case documentCopy of the issued claim held by the claimant.
A fresh County Court money claim was issued
The claim sought repayment of service-charge adjustments and a £120 share of the tribunal-fee award, supported by the FTT decisions and a calculation.
Defendant's position
Case documentEagerstates' filed defence, summarised here.
Eagerstates disputed the claim route and relied on 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
Wrong-route defence
Defence used
The filed defence said the matter could not proceed by money claim. It did not cite a case. The claimant addressed Termhouse in the witness statement and hearing preparation.
How the claimant responded
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 the claimant responded
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.
Court record
Claimant's recordsClaimant's case record.
The claim was not settled through mediation
The claim was not settled through the court's mediation process, so it proceeded to a County Court hearing.
Claimant's position
Case documentClaimant's filed witness statement and exhibits.
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
Court or tribunal documentCourt papers held by the claimant.
The defended claim was heard in person
The final hearing took place in person. The order records that the court heard the claimant after the defendant’s counsel withdrew, leaving the defendant unrepresented.
Outcome without reasons
Court or tribunal documentWritten County Court order. It records the figures but gives no reasons.
Judgment was entered for the claimant
The sealed order awarded £3,326.77 principal, £188.52 interest and £551 costs: a total of £4,066.29, payable by 4pm on 19 January 2026.
Claimant's position
Case documentClaimant's sent payment request.
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.
Read the reconstructed payment demand7 January 2026 · To: Eagerstates
Edited reconstruction from the claimant’s correspondence. Personal details are omitted; this is not a verbatim copy or an official form.
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.
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
Claimant's recordsPayment email and attached bank instruction, checked against the order.
Payment evidence followed a deadline-day reminder
After a reminder on 19 January 2026, Eagerstates supplied a bank payment instruction for £4,066.29 that day.