BIR/31UG/LSC/2024/0616 — service charge decision
In BIR/31UG/LSC/2024/0616, decided 11 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 1-9 Court House, Norman Road, Melton Mowbray, LE13 1JE and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 1-9 Court House, Norman Road, Melton Mowbray, LE13 1JE
Decision date: 11 July 2025
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2018-2023) | — | £9,610 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2022) | — | £50 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Other charges (2019-2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019-2022) | £1,318.72 | £1,318.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-2022) | — | — | Reduced | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2022) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2019-2022) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal has determined that the sum of £175 including VAT pcm for the years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 is reasonable and £185pcm inc VAT for years 2022 and 2023 is a reasonable increase.”
“The exceptional item was a claim for £168.00 which appears to be an out of hours call, but the time claimed is not justified. £50.00 is a reasonable sum for this item.”
“Part 2 are call out claims which are within the duties of an agent (Code 2.4(k)). They should not be the subject of an additional charge.”
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the frequency of testing was reasonable. The charges imposed are within a reasonable range.”
“apart from the sum of £31.09 which the Respondent could not justify, the Applicants relied on the opinion of Mr Bourqui who did not back up his assertions with any evidence. The Tribunal has allowed those sums on balance.”
“Variations were made if the time taken was excessive. The sum claimed for electrical testing (£240) is reasonable.”
“The lack of a management agreement with the Respondent is surprising having regard to the size and experience of Blue. The use of closely associated companies had resulted in some confusion over responsibilities.”
“the Tribunal has the same reservation over the business model applied by Blue Property Management and its use of associated companies for service delivery as described at paragraph 32 of the first decision.”
“There was no evidence the Applicants were aware of the use of the company or that its invoices were passed through to them in the budgets or accounts.”
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.