Decision summary

MAN/00BL/LSC/2021/0042 — service charge decision

In MAN/00BL/LSC/2021/0042, decided 7 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 493 and 495 Leigh Road, Bolton BL5 2JH and reached a mixed result: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 493 and 495 Leigh Road, Bolton BL5 2JH
Decision date: 7 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Gateway Properties Limited (managed in-house via Regional Manager).

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2018-19)£584.40£278.40ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Other charges (2019-20)£502.40£239.40ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Other charges (2020-21)£162.05£119.80ReducedFee excessive for service delivered
Buildings insurance (2019-20)£236.69£236.69Allowed in full
Buildings insurance (2020-21)£265.44£265.44Allowed in full
Administration charges (2020-21)£360£360Allowed in full
Legal & professional costs (2020-21)£115£0Disallowed entirelyCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a))
Management fees (2018-19)ReducedFee excessive for service delivered

Section 20C order: granted.

Key passages (verbatim)

“we have reduced the Management fee for the Apartments for the years in question to an annual amount of £100 (being £50 per apartment) – in addition to the out of hours charge – as we do not consider the full amount to have been reasonably incurred.”
On other charges
“we have reduced the Management fee for the Apartments for the years in question to an annual amount of £100 (being £50 per apartment)”
On other charges
“we have reduced the Management fee for the Apartments for the years in question to an annual amount of £100 (being £50 per apartment)”
On other charges
“We considered the sum being charged for insurance and in our view this sum is both fair and reasonable. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary and in accordance with our own view as an expert Tribunal we therefore find this sum to be payable in full by the Respondent.”
On buildings insurance
“We considered the sum being charged for insurance and in our view this sum is both fair and reasonable.”
On buildings insurance
“the late payment charge and the issue fee charge are properly payable under the terms of the lease once the defect has been remedied.”
On administration charges
“the statement of anticipated Service Charge Expenditure [page 223] refers to a number of items which are not provided by the Applicant, including Window cleaning, Ground Maintenance and electricity to Common Parts.”
Of Applicant / management company — anticipatory service charge budgets
“whilst the anticipated charges are at best opaque, and equally unhelpfully continue to refer to these charges over multiple years”
Of Applicant / management company — anticipatory budgets over multiple years
“In respect of the Apartment Management fees we take a less generous view of the conduct of the management company, as it would appear that their conduct in respect of the preparation of the anticipatory budget has done little other than confuse the Respondent. We consider that the level of management carried out on behalf of the Respondent in the years in question was below that which could reasonably be expected”
Of Applicant / management company — Apartment management fee conduct
“we were surprised that the accountants had not identified the anomaly in the anticipated charges as referred to above, we concluded that this was the responsibility of the management company, and not the accountants.”
Of Accountants — failure to identify anomaly in anticipated charges

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.