Decision summary

BIR/OOCN/LIS/2024/0014 — service charge decision

In BIR/OOCN/LIS/2024/0014, decided 30 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 37 disputed service charge items at The Cube, 196 Wharfside Street, Birmingham, B1 1RN and reached a mixed result: 32 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: The Cube, 196 Wharfside Street, Birmingham, B1 1RN
Decision date: 30 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Fidum Property Management Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Buildings insurance (2018)ReducedUndisclosed insurance commission, Apportionment error
Buildings insurance (2019)ReducedUndisclosed insurance commission, Apportionment error
Buildings insurance (2020)ReducedUndisclosed insurance commission, Apportionment error
Buildings insurance (2021)ReducedUndisclosed insurance commission, Apportionment error
Buildings insurance (2022)ReducedUndisclosed insurance commission, Apportionment error
Buildings insurance (2023)ReducedUndisclosed insurance commission, Apportionment error
Buildings insurance (2024)Allowed in full
Staffing & concierge (2021)ReducedApportionment error
Staffing & concierge (2022)ReducedApportionment error
Staffing & concierge (2023)ReducedApportionment error
Staffing & concierge (2024)ReducedApportionment error
Staffing & concierge (2021)£4,740£2,356ReducedApportionment error
Cleaning (2018)Allowed in full
Cleaning (2019)£37,952.24£30,361.80ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Cleaning (2020)£31,784.89£28,606.41ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Cleaning (2021)£35,354.33£30,051.18ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Cleaning (2022)£45,032.89£36,026.32ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Cleaning (2023)£45,499.39£36,399.52ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Cleaning (2024)Allowed in full
Management fees (2018)£17,568.18£16,689.78ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Management fees (2019)£29,413£27,942.35ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Management fees (2020)£30,175.20£28,666.45ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Management fees (2021)£30,206.40£28,696.08ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Management fees (2022)£31,694.40£30,109.68ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Management fees (2023)£34,224£32,512.80ReducedStandard not reasonable (s19(1)(b))
Management fees (2024)Allowed in full
Utilities (2018)ReducedApportionment error
Utilities (2019)ReducedApportionment error
Utilities (2020)ReducedApportionment error
Utilities (2021)ReducedApportionment error
Utilities (2022)ReducedApportionment error
Utilities (2023)ReducedApportionment error
Utilities (2024)Allowed in full
Other charges (2021)£43,692£26,930ReducedApportionment error
Other charges (2022)£43,119.80£26,223ReducedApportionment error
Other charges (2023)£43,990.70£25,975ReducedApportionment error
Other charges (2024)£55,713.54£25,975ReducedApportionment error

Key passages (verbatim)

“We are not satisfied that the total commissions paid to Reich for the years 2018 – 2023 were reasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“We are not satisfied that the total commissions paid to Reich for the years 2018 – 2023 were reasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“We are not satisfied that the total commissions paid to Reich for the years 2018 – 2023 were reasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“We are not satisfied that the total commissions paid to Reich for the years 2018 – 2023 were reasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“We are not satisfied that the total commissions paid to Reich for the years 2018 – 2023 were reasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“We are not satisfied that the total commissions paid to Reich for the years 2018 – 2023 were reasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance

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.