BIR/31UG/LSC/2024/0003 — service charge decision
In BIR/31UG/LSC/2024/0003, decided 3 March 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 1-9 Court House, Norman Road, Melton Mowbray 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
Decision date: 3 March 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Urban Point Management / Blue Property Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019-2022) | — | — | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2020) | £786 | £786 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | £2,707 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the method of procuring insurance has produced insurance premiums which are not reasonable… The Tribunal determines that the sum of £17,748 was overpaid by the Applicants in respect of insurance premiums in years 2019-2022.”
“The fee paid for the Reinstatement Cost Assessment was not excessive. There is no obligation to accept the cheapest fee provided the cost is not unreasonable.”
“The refund of £2707.00 was made by the Respondent but not in cash. The reasonableness of the service charges against which the refund was set off is the subject of separate proceedings.”
“The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Respondent has complied with its duty prescribed in the lease to ensure that the insurance represents value for money, because of its practice of procuring insurance by grouping together all the Respondent's properties with a single broker which offers the entire portfolio to the market, particularly bearing in mind notwithstanding the Respondent's own submission that each property in the portfolio differs in character.”
“It was not satisfied that the commission was a fair sum.”
“Implicitly, policies were written with the interests of the broker and Respondent gaining significant commission in breach of regulatory codes of conduct such as the Financial Conduct Authority's 'Treating Customers Fairly' and its Code of Business Sourcebook.”
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.