MAN/00BR/LSC/2024/0242 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BR/LSC/2024/0242, decided 3 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 14 disputed service charge items at Apartment 19 Worsley Point, 251 Worsley Road, Swinton M27 0YE and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 19 Worsley Point, 251 Worsley Road, Swinton M27 0YE
Decision date: 3 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Advance Building Management (ABM) / Oakland Residential Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | £250 | £250 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2022) | £1,848 | £1,848 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the secretarial fees are properly recoverable pursuant to the General Management and Administration Covenant … the fees fall within reasonable discretion of the Residents Company as being necessary and/or advisable for the proper administration of the Property and of the Building.”
“the issue of interest on reserve funds is not a matter within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, section 27A being expressly limited to liability to pay 'service charges'.”
“there is no basis to find that that work was not reasonably incurred expenditure or not of a reasonable standard; nor, that initial work subsequently having been found to be ineffective, is the decision to stop lawn treatment work unreasonable.”
“Insofar as the commission did have a material effect on the amount of the service charge … the Tribunal is satisfied that this was reasonably recoverable pursuant to the covenants, in particular the Insurance Covenants, or the Agents Covenant.”
“the Tribunal is satisfied the all the expenditure was reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount because: a. there is no evidence that the gutter cleaning was carried out negligently … the contractor instructed to carry out the work was recommended by the managing agent and his work was authorised by the NHBC”
“obtaining legal advice in relation to an ongoing breach of the Lease was reasonable; the fact that no enforcement action has been taken is irrelevant and in any event outside the scope of section 27A LTA 1985.”
“whilst it accepts that to some degree there have been delays or failures to disclose documents to the Applicants, the Applicants have been unsuccessful in their application save to the extent of the concession by the Respondent.”
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.