HAV/00HQ/LSC/2024/0625 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HQ/LSC/2024/0625, decided 16 December 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 13 disputed service charge items at 8A Park Lake Road, Poole, Dorset and reached a mixed result: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 8A Park Lake Road, Poole, Dorset
Decision date: 16 December 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2022) | £1,560 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2022) | £117.30 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £210 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £252 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £1,428 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £45 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Major works (2022) | £500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £2,050 | £1,537.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £250 | £250 | Allowed in full | No Section 20 consultation |
| Major works (2022) | £1,030 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £700 | £560 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Major works (2023) | £1,220 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £1,700 | £1,275 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“On a strict interpretation, the Tribunal finds that removal would be distinct from the same. The Tribunal therefore finds that the Respondent is not obliged to pay for the removal of the front chimney.”
“The Tribunal refers to its earlier finding as to the S20B notice, finding that the notice was sent 18 months after the cost was incurred. The cost is therefore not payable by the Respondent.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of the fee for the Thornes Report and accordingly is not satisfied that the cost of £420 (prior to apportionment) was incurred.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of the fee or any corresponding report for the Bird Survey.”
“The Tribunal therefore finds that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the costs in relation to the BE Willis fees were reasonably incurred. As such the Tribunal finds that the Respondent is not liable to contribute towards this item of expenditure.”
“The Tribunal refers to its earlier finding as to the S20B notice, finding that the notice was sent 18 months after the cost was incurred. The cost is therefore not payable by the Respondent.”
“The Tribunal considered Dr Harrison's oral evidence on the roof support to be unclear, vague and confused. She was unable to answer the Tribunal's query as to the nature and extent of the work and referred to the same only as straps to the roof.”
“The oral evidence of Dr Harrison was unclear as to what works had been undertaken to each chimney with moments of confusion and discussion with the Respondent in an attempt to clarify the situation.”
“The Respondent raised justifiable doubt as to whether all of this cost could be ascribed to the Applicant's obligations under the lease. The Applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to counter this concern.”
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.