MAN/00BS/LSC/2023/0059 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BS/LSC/2023/0059, decided 22 October 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at 9, 13, 20, 93 and 142 Victoria Mill, Houldsworth Street, Reddish and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 9, 13, 20, 93 and 142 Victoria Mill, Houldsworth Street, Reddish
Decision date: 22 October 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: LivingCity Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lifts (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Utilities (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | £45,000 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Administration charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal finds that the costs for the 2 lift telephone lines and the call-out charges are reasonable”
“It was reasonable for the Respondent to have arranged for an additional clean as a result of the dust/dirt from the adjoining building site.”
“The costs are reasonable save for any costs which relate to the car parking spaces which are disallowed.”
“The costs are reasonable save for any costs which relate to the car parking spaces which are disallowed.”
“costs which relate to the car parking spaces are disallowed; costs relating to vehicular and pedestrian gates and fob entry system to the Building are reasonable.”
“The electricity costs are reasonable.”
“The Applicants have repeatedly failed to particularise their challenges to the service charge expenditure eg by making statements that costs are unreasonable without providing any objective evidence to support their claims.”
“The Applicants' claims of failures of compliance/breaches of obligation by the Respondent with legislation, the RICS Code and/or the Apartment Lease also frequently lack any supporting evidence to explain the basis of the claim/the circumstances which have raised a suspicion in the Applicants' minds.”
“By stating that all landscaping costs are payable by the Applicants under the Apartment Lease, it is again unclear if the Respondent understands the need to distinguish between landscaping expenditure on the 'Estate Common Parts' which is recoverable as service charge and landscaping expenditure (if any) on the car parking spaces which is not.”
“The Respondent has not provided any evidence supporting its decision to pursue the appeal eg counsel's opinion on the merits of the appeal/likelihood of success.”
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.