BIR/00FY/LLD/2021/0002 — service charge decision
In BIR/00FY/LLD/2021/0002, decided 29 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at 6 and 7 Royal Court, Haydn Road, Nottingham and reached a mixed result: 10 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 | — |
| Other charges (2010) | £1,153.34 | £1,042.62 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2011) | £952.75 | £952.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2012) | £1,297.33 | £577.27 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2013) | £1,383.50 | £713.50 | 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)) |
| 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)) |
| Other charges (2020) | £1,406 | £1,406 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2010) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2013) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2013) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2014) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Electricity charges found reasonably incurred; cleaning and maintenance allowed in full for 2009.”
“S20B costs conceded £1244.72/12 = 103.72”
“All disputed items allowed in full for 2011; no s20B deduction required.”
“S20B costs conceded £4,380.72/12 = 365.06; labour items conceded in Scott schedule.”
“Labour charges of £1085.00 reduced to £450.00; electrical work reduced by £35.00.”
“Incorrect car parking charge conceded; S20B costs conceded £1,497.04/12 = 124.75.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 Respondent having realised the problem could instead have claimed interest on arrears relating to the balancing charges from 21 days after payment fell due on the final account, but has instead presented an argument for continuing to seek interest on all arrears of service charges on and from 1 August 2019, despite not establishing that this is the contractual due date from which to make its calculations.”
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.