BIR/37UG/LIS/2020/0033 — service charge decision
In BIR/37UG/LIS/2020/0033, decided 17 February 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Brisbane Court, Balderton, Newark, Nottinghamshire and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Brisbane Court, Balderton, Newark, Nottinghamshire
Decision date: 17 February 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Fairview Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2012) | — | £4,171.38 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2013) | — | £4,330.19 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2014) | — | £4,344.82 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2015) | — | £2,193.91 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2016) | — | £4,571.09 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2012-2016) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Management fees (2005-2011) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2005-2011) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal has decided the Applicant's claim for management charge is reasonable as it follows the reasoning of the 2017 Decision.”
“The Tribunal has decided the Applicant's claim for management charge is reasonable as it follows the reasoning of the 2017 Decision.”
“The Tribunal has decided the Applicant's claim for management charge is reasonable as it follows the reasoning of the 2017 Decision.”
“The Tribunal has decided the Applicant's claim for management charge is reasonable as it follows the reasoning of the 2017 Decision.”
“The Tribunal has decided the Applicant's claim for management charge is reasonable as it follows the reasoning of the 2017 Decision.”
“The Tribunal from its experience was satisfied that the deduction of 6.9% in total was reasonable.”
“It was not explained why the parties had not complied with directions. Mr Reifer stated he had tried to agree matters with the Applicant but Mr Alford was not in a position to say why there had been no progress so far as the Applicant was concerned.”
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.