MAN/00BW/LBC/2023/0022 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BW/LBC/2023/0022, decided 13 December 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Apartment 16, 229 Wigan Road, Standish, Wigan and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 16, 229 Wigan Road, Standish, Wigan
Decision date: 13 December 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Wigan Road Management Company Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal found no evidence of a breach under clause 3.15. Ancer alleged a breach of the 2022 Regulations, but the Tribunal found none.”
“This clause is clearly restricted to the 'Premises'... the definition of the Premises...does not include the anteroom. Unsurprisingly therefore, the Tribunal found no evidence of any breach of clause 3.18.”
“The Tribunal found it to have been overstated and unproven. The Tribunal determined that no breach has been demonstrated.”
“His statements are a clear admission that on occasions a part of the Premises (the apartment) has been sublet separately from the remainder (the storage cupboard/room). Such acts constitute a breach of the covenant.”
“Not for the first time, the Tribunal found Ancer's allegation of a particular breach to be tenuous, somewhat contrived, and misdirected.”
“Not for the first time, the Tribunal found Ancer's allegation of a particular breach to be tenuous, somewhat contrived, and misdirected.”
“Mr Schickhoff-Brown's email of 17 October 2019 misrepresented who had fitted the lock in 2006.”
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.