CHI/00MW/LSC/2024/0073 & others — service charge decision
In CHI/00MW/LSC/2024/0073 & others, decided 8 April 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Various West Bay Club, Hallets Shute, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various West Bay Club, Hallets Shute, Yarmouth, Isle of Wight
Decision date: 8 April 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: ERMC.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022-2024) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Utilities (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £70,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022-2024) | £16,900 | £4,000 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“We find that the Respondent was entitled to have its own level of management and on site staff... We find that the Respondents approach was reasonable.”
“her role was focussed on matters relating to DOV1 and the completion of the same. As a result, given the terms of DOV1, in our judgment her costs are not recoverable as a service charge item from the Applicants.”
“only 80% of the levy is recoverable from the Applicants as a service charge cost.”
“We are satisfied that a reasonable and rational methodology is applied to the calculation of these costs.”
“these costs were incurred by the Respondent in trying to further the letting of the units... not service charges but costs the Respondent incurred to improve its own financial returns.”
“The amount claimed is nearly £70,000... we would have allowed nil as the costs are not in our judgment on the evidence before us reasonable.”
“We found Mr Hill was a witness who had an agenda of his own. As he explained he had separate commercial disputes with the Respondent linked to the operation of his Casa Fina business and works he had undertaken for the Respondent. We found his evidence generally lacked credibility at points and he wished to make the case he was putting forward to best serve himself.”
“We found at points Mr Day choose not to answer questions suggesting others had the information. We find in so doing he was on occasion disingenuous but overall we believe he tried to provide proper and honest answers to questions put to him.”
“Again we note Ms Upton stated in her evidence upon advice from the solicitors no breakdown was provided. We find this extraordinary, equally the quantum of the costs for what work appears to have been undertaken the letters produced.”
“Ms Upton in her evidence suggested she was told not to provide the time cost breakdown as it continued privileged material. This advice supposedly came from the solicitors. No explanation was given as to why any advice itself could not have been simply redacted.”
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.