CHI/00HN/LBC/2021/0003 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HN/LBC/2021/0003, decided 14 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Ground Floor Flat, 13 Richmond Wood Road, Charminster, Bournemouth and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Ground Floor Flat, 13 Richmond Wood Road, Charminster, Bournemouth
Decision date: 14 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Coles Miller Solicitors LLP.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“At the hearing the Applicant confirmed that he wished to withdraw the first allegation relating to non-payment of insurance premiums.”
“Section 20 requires...the landlord to carry out consultation with leaseholders...It does not...require the leaseholders to provide quotes...the leaseholder is entitled to remain silent...this breach is not made out.”
“the Tribunal considers that the Respondent was in breach of covenant in that he kept and keeps pets at the property without consent, contrary to paragraph 10 of the Third Schedule.”
“The keeping of dogs within the Property is not something that falls within this prohibition which is aimed at the use to which the Property is put.”
“the Tribunal finds that the Respondent has breached paragraph 10 of the Third Schedule by parking vehicles on the highway by the dropped kerb which obstruct the Applicant's access by vehicle to the driveway.”
“The Tribunal struggled with this approach, at best it might be said that failure to take action was an indication that consent had been granted in the past, but the Respondent did not go so far as to say there had ever been an express consent.”
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.