MAN/00BR/LDC/2024/0185 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BR/LDC/2024/0185, decided 29 April 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 3 disputed service charge items at 80 Velour Close, Salford M3 6AP & Flat 49, Linen Court, Salford M3 6AP and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 80 Velour Close, Salford M3 6AP & Flat 49, Linen Court, Salford M3 6AP
Decision date: 29 April 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Contour Property Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2024-25) | £1,005.44 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2024-25) | £1,179.31 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2024-25) | — | — | Withdrawn | No Section 20 consultation |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds the cost of the replacement of the communal doors was not reasonably incurred in its entirety and is not recoverable from the Applicants.”
“the Tribunal orders that the Applicants' service charges should be reduced by, in the case of the First Applicant £1,179.31, and in the case of the Second Applicant, by £1,005.44.”
“They were unable to identify any breaches (accepting that the point made in the Statement of Case in relation to the tendering process not having been conducted correctly … was mistaken).”
“It does not find the evidence that the doors were 'coming to the end of their lifespan' reliable or credible, because it is based on an assertion of 'industry standards' which are generic, and have no specific regard to the actual doors, the Respondent's own evidence as to the condition of the doors or lifespan as referred to in previous inspections/reports, nor the actual date of installation of the doors”
“the justification for replacement in order to 'keep the building in a good state of repair and minimise the need for day-to-day maintenance; to maintain the value of the building; to comply with latest, fire, health and safety standards' is a mere assertion, unsupported by evidence.”
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.