CHI/24UD/LBC/2024/0006 — service charge decision
In CHI/24UD/LBC/2024/0006, decided 12 August 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Garages at Plot 2 The Framptons, Grange Rd, Netley Abbey, Southampton, SO31 5HZ and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Garages at Plot 2 The Framptons, Grange Rd, Netley Abbey, Southampton, SO31 5HZ
Decision date: 12 August 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The respondents are in breach of Schedule 4 Paragraph 8.1 of the lease by installing an electric vehicle charging point to the exterior of the garage.”
“The respondents are in breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 8.2 by making internal alterations to the garage by adding dry board plaster walls, electrical wiring, flooring and lighting without consent.”
“The respondents are in breach of Schedule 5, Paragraph 1 by changing the permitted use of the demised premises from that of a garage to an office and gym.”
“The respondents are in breach of Schedule 5 Paragraph 1, and clause 1.1 by operating a company Posh Parties 247 Ltd from the demise.”
“There is insufficient evidence in respect of Beckles Care Expert & Case Management Services Ltd. This is because there was insufficient evidence to show that it was operating from the garage as opposed from 1 The Framptons.”
“The citing of fake cases before a court or tribunal is always a serious matter”
“it does affect the credibility of the respondents because it demonstrates a lack of care in the preparation of evidence”
“The Tribunal finds that this does amount to unreasonable conduct within rule 13(1)(b). It has decided that the misconduct is serious, being conduct that undermines civil litigation in the Tribunal.”
“The Tribunal considers, in light of the fake cases that Mr Beckles' evidence must be treated with caution.”
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.