BIR/00CN/LBC/2020/0002 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CN/LBC/2020/0002, decided 17 January 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 3 Royal Arch Apartments, The Mailbox, Wharfside Street, Birmingham B1 1RB and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 Royal Arch Apartments, The Mailbox, Wharfside Street, Birmingham B1 1RB
Decision date: 17 January 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Wolfs Block Management Limited (from Dec 2018); previously SDL Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal does not find on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence supports the Landlords allegation that the Tenant has breached clause 3.6 of the Lease.”
“Allegation was withdrawn by the Landlord”
“the Tribunal finds that the Tenant is not in breach of Clause 3.5(b) of the lease.”
“Allegation withdrawn by the Landlord.”
“The Tribunal therefore finds that the Tenant was in breach of Regulation 3 and Regulation 6 on various dates during the period commencing on 19 January 2019 until the date in July/August 2021 when Ms Mian and her son left the Property.”
“The Tribunal therefore finds that the Tenant is not in breach of Regulation 15 of the Fourth Schedule to the lease.”
“Why Mr Butt had chosen not to mention his personal relationship to Ms Mian in his witness statement or the revised statement of case is unclear.”
“There is surprisingly no evidence confirming what, if any, action was taken by Wolfs in response to the complaints.”
“By contrast Mr Butt was evasive in his statements about the identity of the occupiers and also at times during evidence. He was unnecessarily truculent in his responses to Mr Trevedi during cross examination, offering very little argument in response to the allegations until questioned by the Tribunal.”
“It is clear from the evidence that Ms Mian, a director of the Tenant company, was aware of the complaints and her failure to engage meaningfully with those complaints or these proceedings, indicates a carelessness or indifference to the degree of nuisance her families actions have caused to her neighbour.”
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.