MAN/00BN/LSC/2023/0043 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BN/LSC/2023/0043, decided 16 May 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at 8 King Street, Manchester, M2 6AQ and reached a mixed result: 13 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 8 King Street, Manchester, M2 6AQ
Decision date: 16 May 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Cushman & Wakefield Debenham Tie Leung Limited (C&W) / DTZ Investors UK Limited (DTZI).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2018) | £5,124.28 | £5,124.28 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | £6,955.04 | £6,955.04 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020) | £9,914.83 | £8,309.72 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2021) | £12,332.77 | £7,775 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2022) | £16,500 | £9,074 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Cleaning (2023) | £15,267 | £10,281.22 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £12,817.17 | £8,544.78 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £12,345.47 | £8,230.31 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | £14,759.46 | £9,839.64 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022) | £14,000 | £9,333.33 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023) | £20,000 | £13,333.33 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Historic neglect, Other grounds |
| Major works (2021) | — | — | Reduced | Poor standard of work, Historic neglect, Other grounds |
| Major works (2022) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Poor standard of work, Historic neglect, Estoppel or prior agreement, Other grounds |
| Major works (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2018) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“2018: £5,124,28 (payable)”
“2019: £6955.04 (payable)”
“2020: £8309.72 reduced from £9,914.83 … the costs are unreasonable”
“2021: £7775 reduced from £12,332.77 … the costs are unreasonable”
“2022 budget: of £9074 reduced from £16,500 … the costs are unreasonable”
“2023 budget: of £10281.22 reduced from £15,267 … the costs are unreasonable”
“the Respondent has misconstrued the Applicants case, responded to very specific points raised either in a very general way or not at all. The bundles were unwieldy, there were no witness statements and were difficult to navigate. Katie Helmore was generally limited to legal submissions and identifying relevant documents.”
“They had misled the Tribunal, about what was at issue and failure in their duty to cooperate as required by the overriding objective, by simple denials, as opposed to properly answering the issues raised.”
“the Respondents lack of participation, and failure to address evidential matters, meant that the volume of documentary evidence was out of proportion to the issues.”
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.