MAN/00BU/LSC/2019/0096 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BU/LSC/2019/0096, decided 17 August 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 76 Lingfield Avenue, Sale, M33 4QR and found largely for the leaseholder: 12 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 76 Lingfield Avenue, Sale, M33 4QR
Decision date: 17 August 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2017-18) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Utilities (2018-19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Gardening & grounds (2017-18) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Gardening & grounds (2018-19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Cleaning (2017-18) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Cleaning (2018-19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2017-18) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Apportionment error |
| Utilities (2019-20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2019-20) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“No information is supplied as to how many properties the charges relate to, nor what the annual cost is to the Applicant overall.”
“No information is supplied as to how many properties the charges relate to, nor what the annual cost is to the Applicant overall.”
“The Tribunal assumes that it is intended to add up 12 monthly bills...and then accept that the estate amount be divided equally between 1,443 properties...to produce an annual cost for each property.”
“The Tribunal assumes that it is intended to add up 12 monthly bills...and then accept that the estate amount be divided equally between 1,443 properties.”
“the Tribunal fails to reach the same service charge amounts as are apparently charged to the Respondents, if the Tribunal is to assume an apportionment in respect of 1,443 properties.”
“It asks itself what are the annual amounts in either year for communal cleaning and window cleaning and how are they then apportioned to produce the amounts levied? It makes so bold as to suggest it cannot tell.”
“Notwithstanding the provision of further documentation from the Applicant the Tribunal was left with the view that the Applicant was expecting the Tribunal to do its work for it in justifying the charges levied.”
“It asks itself what are the annual amounts in either year for communal cleaning and window cleaning and how are they then apportioned to produce the amounts levied? It makes so bold as to suggest it cannot tell.”
“It is perhaps fortunate for the Applicant that their application is against a lone pair of tenants and not a larger group of occupiers.”
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.