BIR/17UF/LIS/2023/0017 — service charge decision
In BIR/17UF/LIS/2023/0017, decided 8 May 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at Flat 1, Foundry Court, Torr Top Street, New Mills, High Peak, Derbyshire and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 1, Foundry Court, Torr Top Street, New Mills, High Peak, Derbyshire
Decision date: 8 May 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Oakland Residential Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2023-24) | £260 | £260 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023-24) | £600 | £600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023-24) | £1,781 | £1,781 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2023-24) | £2,520 | £2,520 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2023-24) | £60 | £60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2023-24) | £408 | £408 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £100 | £100 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £60 | £60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023-24) | £1,811 | £1,811 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023-24) | £2,000 | £2,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Applicant's dispute with communal cleaning...is that there is no expenditure. As there is no charge, then that must be reasonable.”
“We find the proposed budget for window cleaning of £260 to be reasonable based on the invoices submitted in the previous service charge year and the Respondent's representative comparator evidence.”
“The Applicant's dispute with communal cleaning and grounds and garden maintenance is that there is no expenditure. As there is no charge, then that must be reasonable.”
“We find the proposed budget for communal electricity of £600 to be reasonable based on the supplier invoices submitted in the previous service charge year and that the supplier was procured through a broker.”
“We find the proposed budgets of £1480, £117 and £184 for Block Building, Terrorism and Director's and Officer's insurance respectively to be reasonable based on the invoices submitted in the previous service charge year and also that the insurances were obtained through a broker.”
“In our professional opinion as an expert Tribunal...we find that the proposed budget of £2520 for the management fee is reasonable. As this development is 10 flats only, there would unlikely be any benefit from the economies of scale.”
“From her submissions, we consider that the Applicant fundamentally misunderstands both the principle of service charges and how service charge accounts work. One Leaseholder cannot independently dictate what services should and should not be provided or how a development is run. Neither does the Lessor have to get written approval from each Leaseholder before any item of expenditure occurs.”
“To put it bluntly, any expenditure, however small, incurred by the managing agents in managing the development in accordance with their management agreement with the Respondent company will be charged to the Respondent company. They are, after all, carrying out the activities on behalf of the Respondent company.”
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.