BIR/00FY/LIS/2021/0005 — service charge decision
In BIR/00FY/LIS/2021/0005, decided 29 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 17 disputed service charge items at 6 and 7 Royal Court, Haydn Road, Nottingham and reached a mixed result: 12 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 (2010) | — | — | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Repairs & maintenance (2010) | £630 | £360 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2012) | — | — | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Repairs & maintenance (2012) | £175 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2012) | £180 | £0 | 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 (2016) | — | — | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016) | £81.25 | £18.75 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019) | £75 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Utilities (2009) | £1,479 | £1,479 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2009) | £920 | £920 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2009) | £1,057 | £1,057 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £590 | £411.80 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £552.50 | £374.30 | 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 | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“S20B costs conceded £1244.72/12 = 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)”
“S20B costs conceded £4,380.72/12 = 365.06”
“Labour (hourly rate) 175.00 … Conceded in Scott schedule -£175.00”
“Labour (hourly rate) 180.00 … Conceded in Scott schedule -£180.00”
“Mr Marlow conceded that the labour charges seemed high and he agreed to reduce the labour charge to £450.00 (i.e. the net day rate for three operatives)”
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.