HAV/00HN/LBC/2024/0507 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HN/LBC/2024/0507, decided 27 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 88a Richmond Wood Road, Queens Park, Bournemouth and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 88a Richmond Wood Road, Queens Park, Bournemouth
Decision date: 27 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £206.64 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2024-25) | £184.95 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £180 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2023) | £120 | £120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | £75 | £75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024) | £245 | £245 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“We do not consider those sums are payable as the insurance was not in joint names. We do not consider that it is sufficient to have the Respondent as a disclosee, it is her interest that needs to be insured in her name.”
“We do not consider those sums are payable as the insurance was not in joint names.”
“In light of that there was no need for the Applicants to put another new fence in situ… As a result we do not consider that the costs in the first invoice for fencing are recoverable. It was not reasonable for the Applicants to incur such costs.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the garden rubbish removal and guttering were all matters that fell within the landlord's obligations under clause 3 (b) and the costs of the same were recoverable.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the garden rubbish removal and guttering were all matters that fell within the landlord's obligations under clause 3 (b) and the costs of the same were recoverable.”
“it is a fence of the building… It therefore falls within the obligation under clause 3 (b) (iii) and as a result part of the costs of complying with that obligation are recoverable under clause 2 (a).”
“The Applicants' Statement of Case and evidence in support was on the thin side.”
“the rather absurd result that there are now two fences running closely parallel to each other.”
“It would also be wrong to permit the Applicants to use their status as landlords to sanction their tenant for conduct which they themselves may well have provoked.”
“The Tribunal was led to believe that this had been remedied and that insurance had been placed in joint names. That appears to have been an error by the Applicants.”
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.