BIR/31UG/LIS/2023/0041-49 — service charge decision
In BIR/31UG/LIS/2023/0041-49, decided 17 September 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 1-9 Court House, Norman Road, Melton Mowbray, LE13 1JE and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1-9 Court House, Norman Road, Melton Mowbray, LE13 1JE
Decision date: 17 September 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Blue Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019-2022) | £2,209 | £984 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019-2022) | £96 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2019-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-2022) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Other charges (2019-2022) | £300 | £0 | conceded | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that the sum of £984.00 inclusive of VAT is a reasonable sum to pay for the preparation of accounts in total for years 2019.2020, 2021 and 2022.”
“The lease does not provide for the cost of membership to be passed on to the lessees. The Tribunal determines the cost of membership of the Client Money Protection scheme is not payable.”
“The Tribunal determines the charges for Health And Safety Inspections and the Fire Risk Assessment are reasonable and payable.”
“The claim relating to the management charges of Blue Property Management is adjourned to be heard at the same time as the connected claim in proceedings issued and identified as BIR/31UG/LIS/2023/0041-49”
“The application for reimbursement of the sum of £300 for inspection of a fire door is dismissed the parties having agreed settlement”
“The complaint about the accountancy costs was dismissed with an assurance that charges are benchmarked without giving any explanation of how the benchmarking is carried out.”
“there is an understandable question of proximity of relationship unanswered by the response to the complaint or by the answers given by Mr Fahy at the hearing. Blue has not attempted to show any benefit to the Applicants for the use of this firm.”
“the decision to carry out inspections on an annual basis appears to be that of Blue acting without consultation with the leaseholders irrespective of any regulation or practice guidance.”
“It is not surprising the Applicants are suspicious of fees incurred by an associated business.”
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.