MAN/00BN/LDC/2024/0001 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BN/LDC/2024/0001, decided 23 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Medlock Place, 30 City Road East, Manchester and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Medlock Place, 30 City Road East, Manchester
Decision date: 23 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group (RMG).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2022-23) | £18,616.50 | £18,616.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2022-23) | £528 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2024) | £100 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20C order: granted. Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“Rescom's quotation was lower and they were contracted to carry out the work at the price of £18,616.50 plus VAT. The cost to each leaseholder would be just over £1,000.”
“it is not appropriate for the Respondents to pay the costs of the 2 consultation letters which were sent out… RGM is therefore to repay to the Respondents' building reserve fund a total of £628”
“£100 was taken from the reserve fund to pay the tribunal's application fee”
“The process of identifying the need for replacement pumps and having the work carried out was not undertaken by RGM with particular urgency, although no doubt there was some risk that the water supply would fail meanwhile.”
“dispensation has been sought not because there was no time in which to consult the Respondents, but because RGM took the view that it had not consulted in compliance with the Consultation Regulations. In the circumstances it is not appropriate for the Respondents to pay the costs of the 2 consultation letters which were sent out or to pay the fee for the present application.”
“that the application 'has only been progressed to cover [RGM's] administrative errors'.”
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.