MAN/00BL/LSC/2020/0043 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BL/LSC/2020/0043, decided 15 April 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at 6 Riverbanks, Bolton and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 6 Riverbanks, Bolton
Decision date: 15 April 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Block Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017) | £630.48 | £499.57 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2018) | £652.56 | £521.03 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019) | £652.56 | £679.34 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018) | £154 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The estimated figure demanded was £630.48, but in fact the Respondent only spent or charged in management fees £499.57. The Applicant having paid £501.12. On these figures the Applicant would be in credit to the sum of £1.55.”
“The estimated figure demanded was £652.56, but in fact the Respondent only spent or charged in management fees £521.03. The Applicant having paid £501.12. On these figures the Applicant would be in debit to the sum of £19.91.”
“The estimated figure demanded was £652.56, but in fact the Respondent spent or charged in management fees £679.34. The Applicant having paid £501.12. On these figures the Applicant would be in debit to the sum of £178.22.”
“The Tribunal makes no determination as to the service charges demanded in 2020 as they were presented to the Tribunal on the basis of being estimated accounts only.”
“the reserve/sinking fund is being dealt within an unreasonable manner that is in contravention of the Code and not in accordance with the principles of good estate management.”
“In service charge year 2019 the Respondent took £107 out of the sinking/reserve fund despite there being under spends on minor repairs and risk assessments of £135 that were being credited into the sinking/reserve fund. There were no major works so the Respondent should not have done this.”
“It is unfortunate that neither party has obeyed this Direction, the substantial evidential submissions are fastened together without the pages being numbered making reference to any particular page much more difficult than it would otherwise have been.”
“The Respondent appears to be using this reserve/sinking fund as some kind of float to dip into and top up where convenient.”
“the reserve/sinking fund is being dealt within an unreasonable manner that is in contravention of the Code and not in accordance with the principles of good estate management.”
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.