BIR/00FN/LIS/2021/0012 — service charge decision
In BIR/00FN/LIS/2021/0012, decided 6 April 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flats 19, 25 and 27, The Albany, 240 London Road, Leicester and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 19, 25 and 27, The Albany, 240 London Road, Leicester
Decision date: 6 April 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021) | £9,647.26 | £9,647.26 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2021) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“There is no basis for reducing or extinguishing any part of the service charge demands for the year in which the 2021 roof work are charged because some or all of those charges should have been collected under the 2009 guarantee from Phoenix Roofing”
“A full statutory consultation was carried out in 2020/21 on the 2021 roof works and so there is no basis for limiting any service charges for that works because of failure to consult”
“The existing sinking fund belongs to the individual lessees according to the state of their running service charge accounts. No additional service charge payments will be collectable from lessees until their credit balances are exhausted”
“Mr Nathan confirmed that all solicitor's costs for seeking payment of the roof payment service charge demand had been cancelled and lessees should find their accounts credited accordingly”
“The Respondent's case was not made as robustly as it could have been. It would have been helpful to hear from the managing agent who organised and supervised the 2021 works. The evidence on Phoenix Roofing's financial position was weak.”
“the First Applicants case was no better prepared. It boiled down to an assertion that the undoubted existence of a 2009 guarantee should have meant no payment should have been required in 2021.”
“Despite the Applicants being directed to provide clear explanations of the case the Applicants were making in relation to the cost of the roof replacement works, any issues with consultation, and specific issues the Applicants had in relation to the service charge years they were disputing, this bundle mainly listed some further documents, none of which identified the Applicants case satisfactorily.”
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.