Decision summary

MAN/00BR/LSC/2010/0036 — service charge decision

In MAN/00BR/LSC/2010/0036, decided 29 July 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 155 Olivia Court, Asgard Drive, Salford, M5 4TR and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 155 Olivia Court, Asgard Drive, Salford, M5 4TR
Decision date: 29 July 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Block Property Management Ltd.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Other charges (2017-18)£1,750.88£1,750.88Allowed in full—
Other charges (2018-19)£1,532.04£1,532.04Allowed in full—
Management fees (2017-18)——Allowed in full—
Buildings insurance (2017-18)£47,715.88—Allowed in full—
Repairs & maintenance (2017-18)——Allowed in full—
Cleaning (2017-18)——Allowed in full—
Major works (2017-18)——Allowed in full—
Legal & professional costs (2017-18)£14,148.90£3,791.20ReducedCosts unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds

Section 20C order: partial.

Key passages (verbatim)

“The tribunal determines that the sum of £3,282.92 is payable by the Respondent in respect of the service charges for the years 1 July 2017-30 June 2018 (£1750.88) and 1 July 2018-30 June 2019 (£1532.04).”
On other charges
“The tribunal determines that the sum of £3,282.92 is payable by the Respondent in respect of the service charges for the years 1 July 2017-30 June 2018 (£1750.88) and 1 July 2018-30 June 2019 (£1532.04).”
On other charges
“the minutes state that the fee has subsequently been fixed and has been charged at less than 10% allowable in the lease. This is confirmed by the accounts.”
On management fees
“Though apparently substantially higher than previous years Mr McGrath has not made out that it is unreasonably incurred.”
On buildings insurance
“An annual inspection and repair are a reasonable cost.”
On repairs & maintenance
“the cleaner is not employed to do high risk tasks such as using specialist equipment and chemicals. These costs are reasonably incurred.”
On cleaning
“The costs claimed by the Applicant appear disproportionate in relation to the service charge at issue and some of these costs may cover work that should have been more properly carried out by the Respondent company.”
Of Applicant (RTM Company / Block Property Management)
“The Applicant has itself not cooperated with the tribunal by not allowing access to the cellar during its inspection.”
Of Applicant (RTM Company)
“These costs are excessive and include 44 units for letters to the Applicant.”
Of WHN Solicitors (Applicant's legal costs — first schedule)
“The final schedule is for the period to 16 April 2020. This amounts to an extraordinary £7,170.20, including a £600 fee to counsel and 88 units in attendance on the applicant. It does not include a figure for VAT that would be £1,434.04. It is unclear why counsel was instructed for a straightforward CMC. No specific legal argument was submitted in the skeleton argument, which largely includes a chronology of events. It is unclear why a partner undertook some of the work.”
Of WHN Solicitors (Applicant's legal costs — third schedule)

Related

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.