CHI/24UH/LBC/2024/0012 & others — service charge decision
In CHI/24UH/LBC/2024/0012 & others, decided 27 June 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Flat 11 and Flat 9 Bembridge House, Bembridge Drive, Hayling Island, Hampshire and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 11 and Flat 9 Bembridge House, Bembridge Drive, Hayling Island, Hampshire
Decision date: 27 June 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021) | £1,238.22 | £1,238.22 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £2,980.78 | £2,980.78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024-25) | £741.28 | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | — | £7,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2024-25) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the actual 'Demand' for the accounting period ending December 25th 2021 (which started from a balance of zero, then set out the list of the expenses and required a payment of £1,238.22) was dated 25th March 2022”
“the 'Demand' for the year ending December 25th 2022, (which carried forward the previous year's unpaid service charge and required a total payment of £2,248.13) was dated the 25th of March 2023”
“the Tribunal found that each of the three years' service charges was validly and properly demanded, and the total figure of £2,980.78 was payable in respect of Flat 11.”
“the Tribunal determined that the Respondents were not in breach of the covenant in respect of service charges for Flat 9.”
“The Tribunal determines that the Respondents are liable to pay £7,500 costs in accordance with the Lease for Flat 11.”
“In respect of Flat 9, as there was no determination of breach of covenant no costs are payable.”
“When Mr. Davies interjected to state that no point had been taken on the issue of certification at any stage in these or previous proceedings until the day of this hearing (when the authority of Marina Heights had been produced at the last minute) and that the Respondents should be estopped from raising it now, Ms. Hobbs indicated that she would not be pursuing this particular argument.”
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.