BIR/47UB/LSC/2021/0004 — service charge decision
In BIR/47UB/LSC/2021/0004, decided 5 January 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 37 Sanders Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire and reached a mixed result: 2 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 (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 (2019-20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
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 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 Applicant does not appear to have ever demanded an administration charge from the Respondent in relation to Wilton's legal costs in 2019/2020. Accordingly, the full amount received from the Respondent's lender … of £1,309.46 … should have been credited to his service charge account”
“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 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.”
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.