BIR/00GG/LIS/2024/0015 — service charge decision
In BIR/00GG/LIS/2024/0015, decided 17 March 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat B, 99 Cartway, Bridgnorth, Shropshire and found largely for the landlord: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat B, 99 Cartway, Bridgnorth, Shropshire
Decision date: 17 March 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021) | £490 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2022) | £490 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021-2022) | £4,272.09 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2023) | £925 | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Legal & professional costs (2022) | £275 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £1,620 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £9,878.93 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“not only because section 27A(4)(c) means that the application to challenge the lack of consultation on the roof works … but also because under the rule in Henderson v Henderson, the Applicant would be prevented from raising that issue before us in any event.”
“We are simply unable to make a determination on the single issue the Applicant raised in his statement of case and on the first three grounds set out in his Scott Schedule (paragraphs 12a – c above).”
“We are simply unable to make a determination on the single issue the Applicant raised in his statement of case and on the first three grounds set out in his Scott Schedule (paragraphs 12a – c above).”
“We are simply unable to make a determination on the single issue the Applicant raised in his statement of case and on the first three grounds set out in his Scott Schedule (paragraphs 12a – c above).”
“Any demand for a payment of a sum as a budget sum in anticipation of future expenditure by definition cannot be based on invoices or accounts.”
“The challenges in the Scott Schedule to amounts which the Applicant has been ordered to pay or was required to pay by the county court (see paragraphs 12e – g above) are hopeless. This tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider these challenges.”
“In fact, the Respondent decided to charge the Applicant (and the Applicant alone) an additional sum of £500 for "all the trouble and nuisance associated with the funding and chasing of the heavily delayed service charge invoicing from the previous year". Somehow, the document setting out the 2022 results ends with an indication that the Applicant owes a further £390.10, but the figures make no sense to us.”
“None of those demands are obviously compliant with paragraph 4.2 of Schedule 6 of the lease, nor do they obviously comply with the statutory requirements of the Act.”
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.