MAN/00BY/LSC/2021/0041 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BY/LSC/2021/0041, decided 18 December 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 18 disputed service charge items at Mann Island, 11 & 15 Mann Island, Liverpool L3 and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Mann Island, 11 & 15 Mann Island, Liverpool L3
Decision date: 18 December 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mann Island Management Limited (MIML).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Staffing & concierge (2014-15 to 2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2020-21) | £18,000 | £18,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2014-15) | £68,185 | £68,185 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2015-16) | £68,041 | £68,041 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2016-17) | £82,082 | £82,082 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £80,293 | £80,293 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £84,032 | £84,032 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £73,906 | £73,906 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £70,817 | £70,817 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2014-15) | £85,828 | £85,828 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2015-16) | £79,011 | £79,011 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2016-17) | £84,323 | £84,323 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | £75,036 | £75,036 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £76,732 | £76,732 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019-20) | £75,632 | £75,632 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020-21) | £93,978 | £93,978 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“We are satisfied that the development benefits from the large range of tasks which Ms Dunkerley undertakes and oversees on a daily basis in her role of Estate Manager, and that it is reasonable for the landlord to incur the cost of engaging a person with Ms Dunkerley's significant skills and experience in this full-time role.”
“A charge was made for the time he spent in this regard at the rate of £125 plus VAT per day. We do not consider this to be unreasonable.”
“we are satisfied that the management fees charged to the residential service charge payers are reasonable charges for the very good standard of management services provided.”
“we are satisfied that the management fees charged to the residential service charge payers are reasonable charges for the very good standard of management services provided.”
“Our impression of the Respondent's arrangements for insuring the development is that they are robust and fit for purpose.”
“the Applicants object to the costs, but without asserting a positive evidenced alternative case.”
“The Applicants' motivation for taking such a forensic approach is not entirely clear, particularly in light of Ms Buckley's oral evidence that she had no complaint about the standard of service provided at Mann Island”
“we note that invitations by Mr Turner to meet to discuss the concerns about the service charge were not taken up by the lead Applicants. That is a shame as early discussions between the parties may well have led to a substantial narrowing of the issues in dispute.”
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.