BIR/47UE/LIS/2020/0013 — service charge decision
In BIR/47UE/LIS/2020/0013, decided 4 March 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at 26 Medina House, Diglis Road, Worcester and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 26 Medina House, Diglis Road, Worcester
Decision date: 4 March 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mainstay Group Limited (also referred to as Mainstay Residential Limited).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2016) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2017) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Management fees (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Duplication of charges |
| Staffing & concierge (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Mainstay are, on this evidence, wrongly charging the leaseholders of Medina House management fees that are referable to the non-Estate Charges. The terms of Mainstay's management contract and the limitations of their internal systems do not justify including charges for non-Estate Charges work in the Estate Charge.”
“Using the same calculation for each of the end of year accounts, we have determined that the management fees for each year were not payable by Mr Sillitoe in full”
“Using the same calculation for each of the end of year accounts, we have determined that the management fees for each year were not payable by Mr Sillitoe in full”
“Using the same calculation for each of the end of year accounts, we have determined that the management fees for each year were not payable by Mr Sillitoe in full”
“Using the same calculation for each of the end of year accounts, we have determined that the management fees for each year were not payable by Mr Sillitoe in full”
“The Tribunal finds that the services provided by the Caretaker are consistent with the Respondents Schedule Seven maintenance responsibilities and proportionate given the size of the Estate and the extent of the managed areas.”
“The Tribunal were not convinced by Mr Siegle's submissions on this. He acknowledges that the leaseholders of Medina House do not contribute to the non-Estate Charges, but justifies including Mainstays management fee for the management of these areas in the Estate Charge on the basis that they receive a fixed fee for the entire Estate and has no system in place to break down the time – which is in any event not substantial.”
“The Tribunal struggled with the Z value calculation in the Apportionment Document and can understand why it would not have been sensible to include that sort of calculation in the service charge summary or demands. It would however have been possible for Mainstay to have provided a simple explanation for the leaseholders, as Mr Siegle was quite able to do at the hearing.”
“The Respondent did not offer any evidence of Mainstay's processes for selecting themselves to provide the Caretaker services.”
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.