MAN/00BN/LSC/2020/0069 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BN/LSC/2020/0069, decided 3 May 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at Flat 22, Bracken House, 44-58 Charles Street, Manchester and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 22, Bracken House, 44-58 Charles Street, Manchester
Decision date: 3 May 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019) | £483,221 | £483,221 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £528,000 | £528,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £9,220 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The WW cost for 2019 were £483,221 and the budgeted WW cost for 2020 are £528,000.”
“The WW cost for 2019 were £483,221 and the budgeted WW cost for 2020 are £528,000.”
“The simple production of invoices with extremely limited narrative, substantial disbursements (to 2 counsel, apparently on the same topic in the 15/05/2019 invoice), together with the brief explanation set out in the Respondent's Statement of Case, is not sufficient to enable us to say that the charges are within the Service Charge provisions and/or reasonably incurred.”
“There is a paucity of evidence and explanation on the part of the Respondents. We accept that the actual advice given will be privileged, but the nature and extent of the advice sought, and how it ties in with the Lease provisions re Service Charges, is not. The simple production of invoices with extremely limited narrative, substantial disbursements (to 2 counsel, apparently on the same topic in the 15/05/2019 invoice), together with the brief explanation set out in the Respondent's Statement of Case, is not sufficient to enable us to say that the charges are within the Service Charge provisions and/or reasonably incurred.”
“It had recently become apparent that the Respondent had obtained tenders on the 8th March 2021 for installation of Fire Alarms in all flats at a cost of £120,000 (with the probability of a grant of £80,000 towards the cost), despite the respondent's assertion in its statement of Case that such a course of action was not possible because the landlord had no power of entry to individual flats for that purpose.”
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.