MAN/00BN/LSC/2024/0240 & others — service charge decision
In MAN/00BN/LSC/2024/0240 & others, decided 3 March 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Flats 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 Fortuneswell Court, 2 Moorland Road, Didsbury, Manchester and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 Fortuneswell Court, 2 Moorland Road, Didsbury, Manchester
Decision date: 3 March 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Plumlife Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2023/24) | £0 | £0 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024/25) | £795.71 | £795.71 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023/24) | £1,073.40 | £448.99 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024/25) | £826.08 | £540 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds (2023/24) | £839.75 | £839.75 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024/25) | £951.42 | £951.42 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2023/24) | £1,870.86 | £1,870.86 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023/24) | £1,055.88 | £1,055.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25) | £446.88 | £446.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25) | £561 | £561 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2023/24) | £186 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2024/25) | £442.29 | £442.29 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023/24) | £324 | £324 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023/24) | £854.88 | £854.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024/25) | £1,146.66 | £1,146.66 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023/24) | £2,376 | £2,376 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024/25) | £2,613.60 | £2,613.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024/25) | £594 | £594 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024/25) | £378 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The 2023/24 accounts show that no communal cleaning charge was applied, and indeed the accounts record a refund. As there is no charge, no determination is required for that period.”
“the annual amount of £795.71 equates to approximately £30 per visit for 26 visits... The Tribunal is satisfied that this level of expenditure is reasonable.”
“the Respondent confirmed it was agreeable to cap the 2023/24 window cleaning costs at the budgeted amount of £448.99, and would refund the difference of £624.41 back to the service charge account.”
“offering to cap the window cleaning costs at £540.00, and refunding the difference of £286.08. Both proposals were accepted by Mr Heywood on behalf of the Applicants at the hearing.”
“The hourly cost (approximately £23.33 in 2023/24 and £26.43 in 2024/25) is not excessive for routine grounds maintenance, and falls within a reasonable commercial range. The Tribunal finds the charges reasonably incurred.”
“The hourly cost (approximately £23.33 in 2023/24 and £26.43 in 2024/25) is not excessive for routine grounds maintenance, and falls within a reasonable commercial range. The Tribunal finds the charges reasonably incurred.”
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.