BIR/00CS/LIS/2021/0030 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CS/LIS/2021/0030, decided 13 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 29 Brandhall Court, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury, B68 8DE and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 29 Brandhall Court, Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury, B68 8DE
Decision date: 13 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: MetroPM.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-17) | £18.13 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2016-17) | £54.92 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2016-17) | £1,080.25 | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2016-17) | £163.50 | £163.50 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent had failed to obtain a buildings or surveyors' report confirming the cause of the damage, the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the damage was caused by a leak in the roof”
“The Tribunal did not consider that a 'bad debt' could be considered a 'Maintenance Expense' under the provisions in the Lease, nor did the Tribunal consider that it fell within the definition of either a 'service charge' or 'relevant costs' under section 18 of the Act.”
“as the consultation requirements were not complied with and as the relevant contribution of the Applicant (as a tenant) would otherwise have exceeded the amount of £250.00, the Tribunal finds that the total contribution of the Applicant … to the works detailed in paragraph 80 above are limited to £250.00”
“The Tribunal finds that the costs of £6,540.00 are reasonable and that the Applicant, as the leaseholder of Flat 29, is liable to pay a fortieth share of the same.”
“although the Tribunal accepts that the directors of the Respondent company did not set out to circumvent the consultation requirements under section 20 of the Act, rather their actions appeared to have been for convenience and borne out of naiveté as to their obligations as a landlord, the requirements of the regulations are strict and do not allow for any flexibility in their interpretation.”
“Although the Respondent had managed to accumulate a significant sum towards the future repair of the garage doors, and had drafted a long-term plan, this does not obviate the Respondent from its obligations to comply with the terms of the Lease in this respect.”
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.