BIR/00CN/LSC/2022/0010 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CN/LSC/2022/0010, decided 20 April 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 20 disputed service charge items at 93 Rupert Street, Nechells, Birmingham and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 93 Rupert Street, Nechells, Birmingham
Decision date: 20 April 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Sycamore Management (Nechells) No.1 Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2022-23) | £2,500 | £2,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | £2,500 | £2,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £1,000 | £1,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £1,200 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £2,000 | £1,874 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2022-23) | £3,000 | £3,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-23) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-23) | £4,500 | £3,250 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-23) | £3,000 | £3,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £600 | £139.20 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £3,000 | £3,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | £6,000 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022-23) | £250 | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £3,000 | £3,127.10 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-23) | £1,250 | £1,250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2022-23) | £12,000 | — | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2022-23) | £3,000 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal had determined, in the previous proceedings, that this element of service charge was reasonable for the year ending 30 September 2022. We agree that this sum is reasonable for the year ending September 2023 too.”
“The Tribunal had determined, in the previous proceedings, that this element of service charge was reasonable for the year ending 30 September 2022. We agree that this sum is reasonable for the year ending September 2023 too.”
“The Tribunal had determined, in previous proceedings, that this sum was reasonable for the service charge year ending 30 September 2022. We agree that this sum is reasonable for the year ending September 2023 too.”
“the Tribunal is not content at this stage to conclude that the proposed costs are reasonable to incur, given the absence of clarification on (a) the insurance position, and (b) the likely level of costs to be incurred, given the outstanding quotations.”
“the sum of £2,000 in relation to the replacement works, given the indicated quote of £2,770, is reasonable in the circumstances.”
“The Applicant indicated that the relevant test works had been completed, at a cost of £1,874... The Tribunal has no difficulty in determining that these works were reasonably required, and that the sum incurred is reasonable in the circumstances.”
“It is noteworthy that the Directions did not require the statements of case to be sent to any of the other twelve leaseholders at the development, such that it should be assumed, that they are unaware of the proceedings, or the substance of them, such that any determination made by this Tribunal cannot fairly be said to bind those other leaseholders.”
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.