BIR/00CS/LSC/2022/0008 — service charge decision
In BIR/00CS/LSC/2022/0008, decided 16 May 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 196 Cape Hill, Birmingham, B66 4SJ and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 196 Cape Hill, Birmingham, B66 4SJ
Decision date: 16 May 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mainstay Residential Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2022) | £12,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £200 | £0 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £2,500 | £2,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022) | £5,770 | £5,770 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £4,330 | £4,330 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022) | £4,750 | £4,750 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2022) | £4,715 | £4,715 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2022) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022) | — | £0 | conceded | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“it was unreasonable to include the proposed cost for the external wall survey in the 2022 budget … the survey was not carried out in 2022, and in the 2023 budget, there is no further proposed expenditure on it … the survey is 'not required as under 18m and no cladding'”
“He agreed there was no TV/Satellite equipment at the block.”
“We do not propose to vary any of the line-by-line budgeted figures in the 2022 budget.”
“We do not propose to vary any of the line-by-line budgeted figures in the 2022 budget.”
“We do not propose to vary any of the line-by-line budgeted figures in the 2022 budget.”
“We do not propose to vary any of the line-by-line budgeted figures in the 2022 budget.”
“We would have expected Mainstay and/or the Respondent to have spotted the impact of including the external wall survey cost in the budget. In the light of Mrs Stokes's overall complaint that the Maintenance Charge for 2022 was 'too high', they should have realised that it has increased very substantially because of the inclusion of that single item, and they should have come to the Tribunal ready to justify that item in particular.”
“We express surprise that the need for a survey had not been fully investigated by Mainstay in December 2021 or January 2022 when the 2022 budget was prepared, the Building Safety Act having been introduced to Parliament in the summer of 2021.”
“the Respondent was entirely unable to produce any justification for including the external wall survey cost in the budget, and its inclusion was not explained at all.”
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.