BIR/00CQ/LSC/2024/0628 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CQ/LSC/2024/0628, decided 15 May 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Beauchamp House, Greyfriars Road, Coventry and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Beauchamp House, Greyfriars Road, Coventry
Decision date: 15 May 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Metro PM.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2022-23) | — | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-24) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024-25) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the lighting works carried out in 2022/23 to the communal areas and the car park were a single set of works. As the cost exceeded £250.00 per lessee, and as there was no consultation, the sum payable by the Applicants for them is limited to £250.00.”
“we find that the Respondent has failed to comply with the terms of the lease in respect of the treatment of the surplus reported in the 2023/24 service charge year.”
“the service charges demanded from the Applicants for 2024/25 must be reduced by the proportionate part of the 2023/24 surplus to which each of them was entitled.”
“the Respondent was obliged under the leases to place reserve funds on deposit to earn interest, which would have been credited to the service charge accounts so as to reduce the amount of service charges payable by lessees.”
“We determine that there was no obligation upon the Respondent to consult under section 20 of the Act on the entering into of the management agreement with Metro PM either when it was originally entered into or when it was orally renewed in subsequent years.”
“We are sceptical of the suggestion that by contracting for a reduced price just below the consultation threshold, the scope of the works changed from being one to two sets of works.”
“It appears to us that the splitting of the costs into two invoices was an attempt to ensure the overall cost was below the consultation threshold, rather than the carrying out of a genuinely separate set of works.”
“It has of course been open to the Respondent to make the dispensation application on a precautionary basis at any time after this application was submitted in December 2024.”
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.