MAN/00BP/LSC/2024/0601 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BP/LSC/2024/0601, decided 8 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at 110 Egerton Street, Oldham, OL1 3UE and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 110 Egerton Street, Oldham, OL1 3UE
Decision date: 8 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gardening & grounds (2022-23) | £31.55 | £31.55 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2022-23) | £143.21 | £143.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2023-24) | £49.16 | £49.16 | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2023-24) | £185.28 | £185.28 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023-24) | £21.58 | £21.58 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the sums charged in respect of Grounds Maintenance for the period in question are, for the frequency and nature of the services provided, modest and, accordingly, they are reasonable.”
“the service charge levied in respect of the Caretaking Charge for the period in question are, again, modest and thus reasonable.”
“the sums charged in respect of Grounds Maintenance for the period in question are, for the frequency and nature of the services provided, modest and, accordingly, they are reasonable.”
“the service charge levied in respect of the Caretaking Charge for the period in question are, again, modest and thus reasonable.”
“the Tribunal determines that the related charges for the Door Entry Charge for 2023/2024 were reasonable.”
“The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's complaints in the Application Notice differ in many ways from those in his Statement of Case, which in turn differ from those in the Schedule.”
“contrary to the understanding of the Respondent and the Tribunal and the layout of the document itself, for the service charge year 2022/2023, the Applicant stated that his comments underneath the cell labelled 'Building Maintenance – Caretaking Charge' in fact related to both Grounds Maintenance and Caretaking Charge, not just Caretaking Charge. This was contrary to the layout of the Schedule for service charge year 2023/2024. The Respondent submitted that it had not had the opportunity for it, nor its witnesses, to respond to the Applicant's specific points regarding Grounds Maintenance for 2022/2023, and thus it was prejudiced. The Tribunal agreed, noting that it was the Applicant who prepared the document.”
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.