MAN/00BY/LSC/2019/0099 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BY/LSC/2019/0099, decided 5 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Flats 3 & 4, 3 Derwent Road West, Liverpool, L13 6QP and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 3 & 4, 3 Derwent Road West, Liverpool, L13 6QP
Decision date: 5 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rebloom / Revolution Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2015-16) | £625 | £625 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2016-17) | £392 | £392 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £726 | £726 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £958 | £958 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2015-16) | £3,251 | £3,251 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | £973 | £973 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £1,027 | £1,027 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-16) | £1,200 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2015-16) | £1,194 | £1,194 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016-17) | £345 | £345 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £5,755 | £4,508.48 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £605 | £605 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2015-16) | £590 | £590 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2016-17) | £724 | £724 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2017-18) | £756 | £756 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2018-19) | £640 | £640 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2016-17) | £1,200 | £1,200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2018-19) | £90 | £90 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-16) | £175 | £175 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“Those amounts are, from the Tribunal's viewpoint largely reasonable and appropriate for the nature of the property under consideration: a single block containing 4 flats.”
“Those amounts are, from the Tribunal's viewpoint largely reasonable and appropriate for the nature of the property under consideration: a single block containing 4 flats.”
“Those amounts are, from the Tribunal's viewpoint largely reasonable and appropriate for the nature of the property under consideration: a single block containing 4 flats.”
“Those amounts are, from the Tribunal's viewpoint largely reasonable and appropriate for the nature of the property under consideration: a single block containing 4 flats.”
“the amount spent under the head of insurance represents two years' premiums and a valuation fee of £1,200.00. the average premium being £1025.50 for each year.”
“The Tribunal would therefore disallow the amount in the May 2016 accounts, in so far as they related to the proportion relevant to the Applicant's properties.”
“The Tribunal is of the view that where a considerable variation in expenditure occurs it is incumbent on the managing agents to voucher them fully.”
“there appears to be a striking similarity between the insurance revaluation cost in the year to May 2016 of £1200.00 and the subsequent appearance the following year of the same amount, this time within the head of "legal and professional". Only the latter is vouchered as a survey fee for a site condition report. The former is not vouchered at all.”
“The invoice from Liverpool City Council for £312.00 (page 149 0f the bundle) is a complete mystery and the Tribunal cannot see where it is reflected in the account for the May 2018 year and it appears not to have been taken into account as a service charge.”
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.