MAN/00BL/LSC/2023/0080 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BL/LSC/2023/0080, decided 21 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 3, Buckley Court, Buckley Lane, Bolton and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 3, Buckley Court, Buckley Lane, Bolton
Decision date: 21 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Dauber Homes Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2010-2024) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-2022) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal take judicial notice of the fact that charges for business bank accounts are not uncommon… the Tribunal… finds… bank charges for the relevant years are not unreasonable, and are recoverable.”
“the Tribunal is not able to find that the relevant quotations were at a lower cost on a like-for-like basis… not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of that the quotations relied upon by the Applicant are on a like-for-like basis.”
“On the basis of the evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied there is any evidence to find that the communal electricity charges for the relevant years are unreasonable.”
“Following disclosure of the relevant invoices in the course of the proceedings, the Applicant accepted that those charges had been reasonably incurred and disbursed.”
“the work was of a reasonable standard, in particular, the fencing was of a reasonable quality and the footings by way of metal spikes provided adequate stability to the fencing.”
“it is clear from the evidence that there has been a failure on the part of the Respondent to disclose relevant documents when requested, and that the application has been pursued, at least in part, as a result of this delay in disclosure of relevant documents until proceedings were issued.”
“the failure by the Respondent to disclose commission on an annual basis was contrary to the RICS guidance”
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.