HAV/00HR/LSC/2025/0820 — service charge decision
In HAV/00HR/LSC/2025/0820, decided 15 September 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 31 Moorhills, Grenville Road, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 2BQ and found largely for the landlord: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 31 Moorhills, Grenville Road, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 2BQ
Decision date: 15 September 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Symonds & Sampson.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2020-2023) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2020-2023) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2023) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Major works (2020-2023) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Cleaning (2020-2023) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-2023) | £11,903.99 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The application to reinstate under Rule 8(2) of the Procedure Rules is therefore dismissed.”
“The application to reinstate under Rule 8(2) of the Procedure Rules is therefore dismissed.”
“The application to reinstate under Rule 8(2) of the Procedure Rules is therefore dismissed.”
“The application to reinstate under Rule 8(2) of the Procedure Rules is therefore dismissed.”
“The application to reinstate under Rule 8(2) of the Procedure Rules is therefore dismissed.”
“The application to reinstate under Rule 8(2) of the Procedure Rules is therefore dismissed.”
“The Tribunal finds that a large part of the Applicant's case, in its current form, is speculative and does not clearly identify the relevant terms of the Lease in issue, nor the basis upon which the 'categories of expenditure' are being challenged.”
“Put simply, in a section 27 challenge, assertions that matters could have been better managed are irrelevant unless and until there is an identifiable service charge cost in issue.”
“the Applicant does not identify what element of those charges is challenged, what sum ought to have been charged instead, or why the charges themselves were unreasonable.”
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.