MAN/00BY/LSC/2021/0076 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BY/LSC/2021/0076, decided 25 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Flat 42 North House, 11-17 North John Street, Liverpool and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 42 North House, 11-17 North John Street, Liverpool
Decision date: 25 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Casserly Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major works (2021-22) | £80,000 | £80,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Administration charges (2021-22) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal considers that the sum of £80,000 is reasonable at the present time, for the purposes of Section 19(2), and accordingly the Tribunal determines that the sum of £4,501.58 is payable by the Applicant to the Respondent by way of service charge”
“The Consultation Requirement are, accordingly, of no application to the element of the Demand which relates to the major works scheduled for the lift refurbishment in the building”
“As the Applicant has been wholly unsuccessful in his application under Section 27A, his application under Section 20C is likewise refused.”
“The Applicant did not particularise which administration charges (if any) he wanted the Tribunal to consider. Accordingly, this application is refused.”
“not only was the Applicant's application under Section 27A ill-advised, but it was in fact doomed to fail from the outset. The Applicant proceeded with the benefit of legal advice and representation. The Tribunal therefore considers that no such applicant, properly advised, would have acted reasonably in bringing the application.”
“the Applicant has occupied the resources of the Tribunal needlessly, including failing to withdraw his application following receipt of the Respondent's statement of case and by which time it ought to have been obvious that the application was going to fail.”
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.