BIR/00GF/LIS/2020/0037 — service charge decision
In BIR/00GF/LIS/2020/0037, decided 13 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at Flats 50, 61 and 65 Beaconsfield Brookside, Telford and reached a mixed result: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 50, 61 and 65 Beaconsfield Brookside, Telford
Decision date: 13 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mr Gunes Ata / Ms Jade Ata (Noble Design and Build).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2016-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2016-2021) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016) | — | £25 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017) | — | £38.33 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | — | £354.55 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2016-2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2016-2020) | — | £20 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2016-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Duplication of charges |
| Cleaning (2016-2021) | — | £15 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2017-2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Fee excessive for service delivered, Duplication of charges |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal has no hesitation in reducing the insurance charges to 1/24 of the annual premiums (including tax) shown on the Schedules - which Ms Ata stated covered 4 identical blocks of 6 flats.”
“the Tribunal determines that the Management Charge should be reduced to £70.00 per year per Flat, to include the costs of monthly checks, including door entry, property and building inspection and what is referred to as 'end of year sign off'”
“Communal Repairs Flat 50 25.00 ... Communal Repairs Flats 61/65 20.83”
“Communal Repairs Flat 50 ... 38.33 ... Communal Repairs Flats 61/65 ... 15.00”
“Communal Repairs Flat 50 ... 33.33 ... Communal Repairs Flats 61/65 ... 18.33”
“Communal Repairs Flats 61/65 ... £354.55 ... The total Block charge is £2127.30 – individual Flat charges are £354.55.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the Job Sheets were compiled in this way with the intention of misleading both the Applicant and the Tribunal about the authorship and date of the jobs shown on the sheets, to present a body of evidence that indicated regular routine maintenance was being carried out. The Tribunal has therefore determined that the Job Sheet evidence is inherently unreliable and that the lengths taken by the Respondent to mislead the Tribunal and the Applicant, strongly indicate that it is unable to provide evidence that could satisfy the Tribunal, on balance of probabilities, that charges for many of the items shown on the Job Sheets have been reasonably incurred.”
“The Tribunal does not find the Respondent's explanation for presenting its evidence in the format Job Sheets, rather than simply submitting an annotated copy of the spreadsheets, to be credible. Significantly the spread sheets were not produced, but the information apparently copied onto individual Job Sheets in different hands and pens, ostensibly to give the appearance of a contemporaneous record of jobs, completed by the various persons responsible for the work.”
“it is ridiculous to suggest that the direction could be complied with by providing to the Applicant and the Tribunal documents that had the relevant figures redacted.”
“It is simply not credible that the Respondent would agree to pay interest, or that a reputable broker would charge such high rates of interest without the parties entering into a properly regulated financial services contract.”
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.