BIR/00GF/LBC/2021/0002 — service charge decision
In BIR/00GF/LBC/2021/0002, decided 31 August 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 11 disputed service charge items at Apartment 4, Stirchley Hall, Stirchley Road, Telford TF3 1DY and reached a mixed result: 10 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 4, Stirchley Hall, Stirchley Road, Telford TF3 1DY
Decision date: 31 August 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“None of the evidence had any relevance to Mrs Palmers covenant to keep the premises demised by the Lease in repair. The evidence all relates to the Communal Hall which is not within Mrs Palmers demise.”
“The Applicant provided no evidence in support of this allegation… Mrs Palmer did not refuse access to SHMC or its workman, the visit was simply never arranged.”
“The tribunal finds therefore that Mrs Palmer was in breach of clause 14(b) prior to the date on which she rehomed her cats but was not in breach after that date.”
“Having regard to the actions taken by Mrs Palmer on the occasions she was notified of the issue, and taking into account the failure of SHMC to take any action to comply with its covenant under paragraph 11 of the Eighth Schedule, the tribunal do not find that Mrs Palmer was in breach of the covenant at clause 14(a).”
“The act complained of is 'using a washing machine'. This is a perfectly usual and normal use of Mrs Palmers apartment… the tribunal does not find the act of using a washing machine to be a breach of the covenant at paragraph 13.”
“Mrs Palmer is, as she suggests entitled to walk around her apartment, it is a usual and reasonable part of living there and the tribunal does not therefore find that the act of walking around the apartment to be a breach of the covenant at paragraph 13.”
“He readily acknowledged that having identified a number of issues with Mrs Palmer's behaviour, the Applicant had trawled through the Lease to find the clauses that appeared to be most relevant.”
“The statements did not contain statements of truth and none of the Applicant's witnesses attended the hearing to give evidence.”
“The allegations were not notified to Mrs Palmer before the issue of proceedings and appear to have been added as an afterthought to bolster the weight of the overall allegations concerning Mrs Palmers conduct. The tribunal is satisfied that this allegation has no substance whatsoever.”
“Furthermore, liability for cleaning and maintaining the Communal Hall, including the replacement as necessary of floor coverings, is with SHMC under paragraph 11 of the Eighth Schedule to the Lease. It was therefore both the responsibility of and within the hands of SHMC, to remediate any persistent odour and seek to recover the costs from Mrs Palmer.”
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.