BIR/47UB/LLD/2021/0006 — service charge decision
In BIR/47UB/LLD/2021/0006, decided 5 January 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 37 Sanders Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 37 Sanders Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire
Decision date: 5 January 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Remus Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £1,363.27 | £1,341.43 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019-20) | — | £450.07 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £1,403.66 | £1,403.66 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £1,440.81 | £1,440.81 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“it was unreasonable for the Respondent to have been charged £60.00 for a service which he carried out himself and determined that an amount of £60.00 should be credited to his service charge account.”
“the full amount received from the Respondent's lender in November 2019 of £1,309.46 (not the £859.39 which was detailed on the Respondent's Statement of Account) should have been credited to his service charge account until such an administration charge had been properly demanded from him. Consequently, a credit of £450.07 is due to the Respondent.”
“the Tribunal determines that the service charges requested on account for those years was reasonable and that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Applicant the sum of £1,403.66 on account for the services for the year ending 24 June 2021”
“a sum of £1,440.81 on account for the services for the year ending 24 June 2022.”
“the Tribunal considers it just and equitable to make an order that the Applicant is extinguished from liability to pay any administration charges in respect of any litigation costs in relation to these tribunal proceedings.”
“the Tribunal considered the Respondent's concerns were legitimate and reasonable and that the application to the Tribunal, and any resulting costs, could have been avoided had the Applicant fully engaged with the Respondent's queries regarding his service charge account.”
“the Tribunal observed that the Respondent had, since November 2020, been querying the accuracy of the outstanding balance on the service charge account and that at no point did he appear to have received a satisfactory reply to his queries.”
“The Tribunal did consider that the Applicant should rectify the numbering on the spaces as soon as possible to avoid further confusion.”
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.