HAV/00MS/LSC/2025/0768 — service charge decision
In HAV/00MS/LSC/2025/0768, decided 3 August 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at C603 Royal Crescent Apartments, 1 Royal Crescent Rd, Southampton, SO14 3AD and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: C603 Royal Crescent Apartments, 1 Royal Crescent Rd, Southampton, SO14 3AD
Decision date: 3 August 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Evolve Block Management (and others including PBM, 8AM).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022) | £3,532.23 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £431.64 | — | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2023) | £1,847.96 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £4,138.96 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2025) | £3,117.09 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2025) | £2,832.36 | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the service charges for 2022, 2023, 2024, and in estimate in 2025, as demanded, are reasonable and payable”
“the stated 'deficit (overspend)' may not be recovered by the Respondent as a service charge from the Applicant”
“the service charges for 2022, 2023, 2024, and in estimate in 2025, as demanded, are reasonable and payable”
“the service charges for 2022, 2023, 2024, and in estimate in 2025, as demanded, are reasonable and payable”
“the service charges for 2022, 2023, 2024, and in estimate in 2025, as demanded, are reasonable and payable”
“the service charges for 2022, 2023, 2024, and in estimate in 2025, as demanded, are reasonable and payable”
“any failure by the Respondent to abide by contractual obligations and meet statutory requirements on the provision of information does not nullify a liability of the Applicant to pay service charges as described in the lease”
“the Respondent was unable to explain the calculation by which the original service charge apportionment of 1.1416% was established”
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.