BIR/17UB/LIS/2021/0047 — service charge decision
In BIR/17UB/LIS/2021/0047, decided 18 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at Apartments 9 and 12, St George's Court, Cromford Road, Langley Mill, Nottingham and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartments 9 and 12, St George's Court, Cromford Road, Langley Mill, Nottingham
Decision date: 18 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: St Georges Court (Langley Mill) Limited (SGC).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | £2,260 | £2,145.80 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £2,195 | £2,195 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £1,774 | £1,774 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2017-18) | £539 | £539 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018-19) | £1,875 | £1,875 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019-20) | £1,373 | £1,373 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-18) | £3,827 | £3,827 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2018-19) | £4,509 | £4,509 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019-20) | £2,703 | £2,703 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £2,098 | £1,487.75 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £1,866 | £1,866 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £3,758 | £3,022.83 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-18) | £900 | £600 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19) | £1,088 | £600 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-20) | £1,800 | £1,037.50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £54 | £54 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £131 | £131 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £140 | £140 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“17/18 may be partly explained by the fact that it contains an additional 7 days (24 April – 30 April 2017). If so, one half of the premium for 372 days would equate to £2,145.80. We were offered no other explanation to justify the accounts figure, and we therefore allow £2,145.80 as the insurance premium for this year instead of £2,260.00.”
“For 18/19, the figures are clearly correct on that basis.”
“we do not make any adjustment to them and allow the sum claimed in the accounts of £1,774.00. The Applicants may consider themselves fortunate in securing this determination.”
“We find that the sums claimed in the accounts are reasonably incurred and are for cleaning to a reasonable standard.”
“We find that the sums claimed in the accounts are reasonably incurred and are for cleaning to a reasonable standard.”
“We find that the sums claimed in the accounts are reasonably incurred and are for cleaning to a reasonable standard.”
“It is entirely proper for the Respondent to appoint an agent if it wishes, but the agency relationship should have been made clear.”
“These extracts illustrate that the accounts actually produced by the Respondent were not in the form normally required. All that was needed was a statement of expenditure, and a reconciliation between the payments received from the service charge payers and the sums they are obliged to pay under the leases.”
“Mr Stevenson agreed that it was difficult to reconcile the spreadsheets with the accounts. He said he was not the bookkeeper and he relied upon the accountants to keep the figures in order.”
“We applaud the Respondent's attempt to make the service charge as affordable as it can, but we see little prospect that St Georges Court can be professionally managed for as little as £800 per flat per year.”
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.