Bailiffs Return to The Grand Folkestone: £20,490 Unpaid CCJ Raises Fresh Service Charge Fears for Leaseholders

Bailiffs were reported at The Grand in Folkestone again on Monday 8 December, in what residents say was another confrontation over unpaid electricity linked to flats — a grim echo of a similar episode five years earlier. This time, the paper trail includes an unsatisfied County Court Judgment (CCJ) for £20,490 recorded against GRAND (FOLKESTONE) RESIDENTS LIMITED. 

A CCJ for £20,490 — and it is still “unsatisfied”

A search of the CCJ Register on the 11 Dec 2025, shows one unsatisfied record against GRAND (FOLKESTONE) RESIDENTS LIMITED, with case number M0CQ398K, for £20,490, with the date of judgment 23 September 2025 and the court shown as Reading.

“Unsatisfied” is the key word. In plain English, it means the judgment is recorded as unpaid (or not fully paid) on the public register at the time of the search. 

The address shown on the record is 42 New Road, Ditton, Aylesford, ME20 6AD.That matters because Companies House records also use that address as a correspondence address for officers, including an active company secretary listing, suggesting it is tied to administration/management rather than necessarily the physical site in Folkestone. 

Bailiffs at the door — again

This is not the first time The Grand has been linked to enforcement action around utility debts.

Back in June 2020, we at The ShepwayVox Team reported that bailiffs attended The Grand seeking payment of £8,563.31 for electricity, with threats to apply for a warrant of entry and concerns raised about risks to shared services such as lifts if power supplies were disrupted. 

Residents now say bailiffs returned on 8 December in relation to electricity connected to flats. If that is right, the immediate public-interest question is brutally simple:

Who ultimately pays when electricity charges go unpaid in a complex building — the individual flat, the building’s residents’ company, or everyone through service charges?

The fear: a private debt quietly becoming everyone’s bill

The Grand is not a normal block. Even the 2020 reporting described “complexity of the electrical arrangements” spanning different uses and metering. In buildings like this, disputes can arise where:

• supply accounts are in the “wrong” name (historic company, former operator, managing entity),

• metering is unclear or disputed,

• communal services and private supplies become entangled,

• urgent payments are made simply to keep essential services running.

That is where leaseholders start to worry. If a large electricity-related liability is paid “to make it go away”, the money has to come from somewhere. If it comes from service charge funds, it can mean higher demands, a deficit, or a call for additional contributions — and, in the worst cases, a fresh round of disputes inside the building.

Service charges are not a free-for-all — there are rules

If any part of this ends up being pushed through service charges, leaseholders are not powerless.

The law requires that service charges are only payable to the extent costs are “reasonably incurred” and the works/services are of a reasonable standard (a core protection under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 19).

There are also strict billing and demand requirements. In England, a service charge demand must be accompanied by a prescribed Summary of Rights and Obligations. 

And timing matters too: as housing charity Shelter summarises, there is an 18-month limit on recovering older costs through service charges unless the required notice has been given. 

In other words: even if someone says “it had to be paid”, that does not automatically mean it is properly chargeable to leaseholders.

Could the CCJ link to the reported bailiff visit?

A CCJ is the court confirming a debt is due. Enforcement can come next.

Government guidance explains that a judgment creditor can ask the court to send enforcement agents to collect money via a warrant of control. But there is a practical complication: official court guidance notes that County Court enforcement is normally capped at £5,000, with larger judgment enforcement often involving transfer to the High Court.

So while a doorstep visit and a CCJ can be connected, they are not automatically the same thing — and utility “bailiff” visits can sometimes involve different legal routes (including warrants connected to disconnection). The only safe statement, on the public record, is this:

• the £20,490 CCJ exists and is shown as unsatisfied on the register search;

• and residents report a fresh enforcement-style visit at the building on 8 December.

The transparency test: three questions that now need answering

This is where any competent residents’ company and managing agents should lean into openness — because silence fuels mistrust, and mistrust in a block like The Grand quickly becomes expensive.

1. Has the £20,490 judgment been paid since the register search — and if so, from what funds? 

2. If any electricity liability was paid to prevent disruption, was it recharged only to the flats responsible — or spread across leaseholders?

3. What went wrong in the first place: billing, metering, governance, cashflow, or enforcement delays?

The register extract itself notes an important limitation: claimant details are not shown in the search result and must be obtained from the relevant court. That makes clear communication from those running the building even more important, because residents cannot see the full picture from the CCJ entry alone.

A building with history — and a warning for the future

Many hoped the controversies associated with The Grand’s past operations were finally receding. The ShepwayVox Team has reported extensively on that earlier period, including a Michael Stainer being sentenced to three years.

But the point here is not personalities. It is governance: a residents’ company exists to protect a building, not expose leaseholders to rolling crises and surprise liabilities.

A £20,490 unsatisfied CCJ is not just a number. It is a flashing warning light — about controls, oversight, and the basic ability to keep essential services paid without turning neighbours into creditors.

And for leaseholders, the stakes are painfully practical: if this ends up in the service charge, someone — eventually — will be asked to refill the pot.

If you have a story which you think we should be telling, then please do contact us at: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me – Always Discreet, Always Confidential.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime