CHI/29UN/LSC/2024/0102 — service charge decision
In CHI/29UN/LSC/2024/0102, decided 20 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 2, 3 & 21 Northumberland Court, Cliftonville, Margate, Kent and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 2, 3 & 21 Northumberland Court, Cliftonville, Margate, Kent
Decision date: 20 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Managed Partnership Ltd (MPL).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2019/20-2022/23) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £64,568.26 | £64,568.26 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024) | £249,070 | £249,070 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“this Tribunal determines that all the challenged sums are payable, save for two sums, one of £400 and the other of £750 as and for the reasons set out in the Appendices.”
“the Tribunal are entirely satisfied that the claimed cost inclusive of commission was within the market norm and that both in terms of process and outcome this premium was demonstrably reasonably incurred and is payable.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied that the current budgeted reserve in the sum of £249,070 though substantial is no more than is reasonable.”
“no lease term was relied upon by the First Respondent or drawn to our attention, nor can we find any clause of the flat lease which would entitle such charges to be levied.”
“this has been remedied by subsequent statements of account and cumulative applications for payment containing the relevant notice. The suspensory effect of non-compliance with ss.47 and 48 has therefore been removed.”
“the submissions received from Mr Blooman were deficient to the point of non-compliance.”
“Mr Blooman failed initially to respond adequately to the application, concerned as he was to know how his costs of participation in the proceedings might be met. This was unhelpful and misguided.”
“the Tribunal detect far greater fault on the part of the Applicants, who it seems to us have sought to challenge multiple charges with a complete lack of discernment.”
“the Applicants have sought, so it appears to the Tribunal and we so find, to pursue their enduring opposition to Mr Blooman's appointment as manager, despite the previous orders made by the FTT appointing him and extending his appointment.”
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.