MAN/00BR/HNA/2025/0672 & 0751 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BR/HNA/2025/0672 & 0751, decided 15 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 2 disputed service charge items at Flat above 5, King Edward Building, Bury Old Road, Salford and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat above 5, King Edward Building, Bury Old Road, Salford
Decision date: 15 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2024) | £7,500 | £7,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £19,500 | £18,000 | Reduced | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Respondent has properly applied the Policy in determining low harm/medium culpability in respect of the s72(1) offence”
“The Respondent confirmed that the reduction reflected the Applicant's action to ensure that the Property was vacated/remedial works fairly quickly were undertaken after the inspection.”
“It is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the statements alone that the Property was operating as an HMO at the relevant time because the Respondent has not satisfactorily addressed the following issues: (i) the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements i.e. whether all of the persons were in the same room when the statements were taken which could account for some of the similarities in their content; (ii) any anxiety/fear on their part because of the police's presence at the inspection which again may account for the contents of and/or similarities in the statements; (iii) the conflict between the contents of the statement of Hamza Aslam and the evidence produced by the Applicant of a tenancy agreement with him and Zeeshan Shahbahz; (iv) as acknowledged by the Applicant, the possibility that some of the persons present at the inspection were only there temporarily/for short periods/overnight. In particular, the Respondent's witness, Ms Turner, acknowledged that she did not ask the persons present at the inspection if the Property was their 'only or main residence' but that this was to be implied from the circumstances e.g. their statements as to the payment of rent; and, (v) in the knowledge that the statements were disputed by the Applicant, the absence of any explanation why none of these people were in attendance at the hearing/available for cross-examination and/or of any evidence of any attempt to procure their attendance.”
“In the absence of any enquiry having been made of Imran Sardar by the Respondent as to why a full-time student at Bradford University was living in Salford and/or any further supporting evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded by Ms Mann's statements regarding the transport links with Bradford and/or the ubiquity of students living in Salford and attending universities throughout the North West.”
“the UCLAN students were not asked why they were renting a property in Salford when studying at a university in Preston.”
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.