MAN/00BY/LSC/2021/0072 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BY/LSC/2021/0072, decided 10 August 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Apartment 7, 5 Hardman Street, Liverpool and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 7, 5 Hardman Street, Liverpool
Decision date: 10 August 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2012-2017) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Management fees (2012-2017) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018-2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2012) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The effect of Section 21B is to prevent the recovery of service charges whist there is a breach of the Section. It is not a provision that entitles a leaseholder to recover payments that have been made.”
“an amount of £100.00 per flat, per year is considered reasonable and therefore appropriate.”
“the overall managing agents fees are also reasonable in those years.”
“The discrepancy is explained by the second amount relating to arrears in respect of charges for the previous year after a final account had been taken. This explanation defeats the allegation of fraud.”
“Upon receiving further information as to how the fire alarm charges had been incorporated into the service charge accounts the Applicant did not seek to pursue thus matter before the Tribunal.”
“It may well be the case that the Applicant would have been happier if that explanation had been proffered sooner.”
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.