CHI/00HN/LSC/2023/0081 — service charge decision
In CHI/00HN/LSC/2023/0081, decided 11 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, Rockstead, 18 West Overcliff Drive, Bournemouth, BH4 8AA and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, Rockstead, 18 West Overcliff Drive, Bournemouth, BH4 8AA
Decision date: 11 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: House and Son.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2016-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2016-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2016-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2016-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“A tribunal has already determined that the Lease does not permit the Applicant to recover any fees of agents (as opposed to for example contractors undertaking works), including managing agents and accountants from the Respondent.”
“The Tribunal determines that the service charges demanded of the Respondent in respect of insurance for each year within these proceedings were payable.”
“The Tribunal determines that the service charges in respect of the major works the subject of the challenged consultation are payable in the face of the challenges to the consultation.”
“The service charges charged to the Respondent by the Applicant are otherwise payable as demanded.”
“the Tribunal agrees that the Applicant is entitled to claim sums reasonable to be paid into a reserve fund in light of the unchallenged 2017 Decision so determining.”
“the Tribunal has no hesitation in echoing the sentiments of the Lands Chamber about the leases of other flats that the Lease was unsatisfactorily drafted, which is abundantly clear. The different wording between paragraphs 3 of Parts I and II of the Third Schedule and the fact of both of them being included combined with a lack of clear indication why each exists and the lack of a reason for both being expressed in different terms all renders construction of the Lease more difficult than it could have been and more difficult for the parties to operate than ideal.”
“It may be that there is detail of how charges to the Respondent have been calculated and if the Tribunal has lost that in the quantity of other papers then the Tribunal is sorry for that.”
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.