MAN/00BN/LSC/2025/0632 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BN/LSC/2025/0632, decided 23 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 21 disputed service charge items at Apartment 4, 73 Old Market Street, Manchester M9 8DX and found largely for the landlord: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 4, 73 Old Market Street, Manchester M9 8DX
Decision date: 23 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: LCP Properties Limited (in-house).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2017/18) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2020/21) | — | — | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Management fees (2021/22) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2022/23) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2023/24) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Cleaning (2017/18) | £296.86 | £296.86 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2020/21) | £136.32 | £136.32 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2021/22) | £90.48 | £90.48 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2022/23) | £441.01 | £441.01 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Cleaning (2023/24) | £962.08 | £626.23 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Lifts (2017/18) | £339.29 | £339.29 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2020/21) | £291.29 | £291.29 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2021/22) | £306.23 | £306.23 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2022/23) | £61.03 | £61.03 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Lifts (2023/24) | £180.55 | £180.55 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2017/18) | £86.37 | £86.37 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £199.28 | £199.28 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2021/22) | £454.56 | £454.56 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2022/23) | £588.85 | £588.85 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2023/24) | £502.66 | £502.66 | Allowed in full | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Other charges (2017/18–2023/24) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient, Other grounds |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal therefore determines that the Respondent has not established that the management and inspection costs, after adjustments, were outside a reasonable range or not payable.”
“The Tribunal therefore determines that the Respondent has not established that the management and inspection costs, after adjustments, were outside a reasonable range or not payable.”
“credits identified comprise £51.02 for YE 2021 management fees ... In addition, in March 2025 a 50% credit was raised on the management fees for 2021, 2022, and 2023.”
“£65.27 for YE 2022 management fees ... a 50% credit was raised on the management fees for 2021, 2022, and 2023.”
“£18.69 for YE 2023 management fees ... a 50% credit was raised on the management fees for 2021, 2022, and 2023.”
“the Tribunal determines that the Respondent has not established that the cleaning costs, after adjustment, were unreasonable or not payable.”
“Gurmair Singh, however, instead decided to pursue the side issues such as LPC not attending meetings, admitted mistakes, inevitably higher costs of large national companies, without taking issue with more relevant issues such as hourly rates, hours per week spent, quality of services provided, local comparators.”
“The Applicant did not help matters by providing information without adequate explanation, nor explaining decision making, such as apportionment, or hours spent and cost per hour. They instead contended that the Respondents had not made out a prima facia case and that later adjustments did not mean the earlier service charge costs was not reasonable. Neither was this clarified at the hearing.”
“The Tribunal records concern that the Applicant's preparation and presentation of the account was not as clear as it should have been. The bundle was lengthy and the concessions were not straightforward to follow.”
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.