BIR/00FY/LIS/2021/0004 — service charge decision
In BIR/00FY/LIS/2021/0004, decided 29 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 23 disputed service charge items at 6 and 7 Royal Court, Haydn Road, Nottingham and reached a mixed result: 11 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 6 and 7 Royal Court, Haydn Road, Nottingham
Decision date: 29 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Blue Property Management UK Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2009) | £840.08 | £840.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2009) | — | £1,479 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2009) | £920 | £920 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2009) | £1,057 | £1,057 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2010) | £1,153.34 | £1,042.62 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Repairs & maintenance (2010) | £630 | £360 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2011) | £952.75 | £952.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2011) | £539.90 | £539.90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2012) | £1,297.33 | £577.27 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2013) | £1,383.50 | £713.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2013) | £1,085 | £450 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2013) | £175 | £140 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2014) | £1,209.84 | £1,209.84 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015) | £1,571.50 | £1,571.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016) | £1,802.25 | £1,615 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016) | £81.25 | £18.75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2017) | £1,481 | £1,481 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £1,525 | £1,525 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £1,432 | £1,357 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £75 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019) | £3,240 | £3,240 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £1,406 | £1,406 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2014-2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“2009 £840.08 - - £840.08 £840.08”
“The lack of an invoice does not of itself render relevant costs unreasonably incurred, absent any other evidence that the charges might be unreasonable.”
“Cleaning 920.00 ... £920.00”
“S20B costs conceded £1244.72/12 = 103.72 ... 2010 – total costs deducted by Tribunal £103.72”
“Mr Marlow did concede that the charge for the doors should have been under the then applicable day rate of £150.00 plus vat for two operatives and agreed to reduce the charge to £300.00 plus VAT – (totalling £360.00)”
“The Tribunal agrees with Mr Marlow, not least because, as before, there was no evidence before the Tribunal from which it could determine that the charges were either unreasonably incurred or unreasonable.”
“The Tribunal thought the delay in invoicing the work was regrettable but had no reason to find the invoice suspicious or the cost of the repair works to have been unreasonable or unreasonably incurred.”
“Instead the Management Company has each year demanded the entire 'on account' budget in advance, which has significantly benefitted the Management Companies cashflow at the expense of the leaseholders cashflow.”
“While the Tribunal did not doubt the veracity of the Respondent's statement, it determined that the full schedules should be provided to the Tribunal and to Mr Redmond if only to rule out any concern about the accuracy of the calculations made for each of the years in question.”
“The item should not have appeared on the Statements of Account as a specific charge to Flat 6. It should have been charged to the 2015 service charge account, which is split between the all flat owners. The sum of £142.18 is not therefore directly recoverable from the Applicants under the lease of Flat 6.”
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.