MAN/00BN/LSC/2024/0148 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BN/LSC/2024/0148, decided 11 September 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Various Flats within The Hallmark, 6 Cheetham Hill, Manchester, M4 4FZ and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various Flats within The Hallmark, 6 Cheetham Hill, Manchester, M4 4FZ
Decision date: 11 September 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Living City Asset Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2021/2022) | £163,891.25 | £163,891.25 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022/2023) | £183,015.14 | £183,015.14 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023/2024) | £124,687.04 | £124,687.04 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal accepted Mr Matthews' evidence regarding the challenges which the Second Respondent encountered in obtaining insurance for the Property for this period…the cover obtained for that period was the only buildings insurance cover available.”
“the quote referred to in the Emails was brought to the attention of the Second Respondent after it had already taken out the policy…this was not a formal quote and so was not available to be accepted by the Second Respondent.”
“the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Manwaring and Mr Matthews where they explained that the quote for Britton House was not 'like for like'…Mr Manwaring also provided an explanation as to the process followed by the Third Respondent in obtaining insurance, including what the Tribunal determined to be a rigorous regular tendering process.”
“the additional legal costs are payable as an administration charge pursuant to clause 5.21 of the Leases, being solicitors' costs incurred by the First Respondent incidental to the preparation and service of proceedings on account of arrears of Service Charge. The costs were reasonable.”
“When asked by the Tribunal why it had been filed and served so late, the Second Respondent did not have an explanation.”
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.