MAN/00BY/LSC/2024/0201 — service charge decision
In MAN/00BY/LSC/2024/0201, decided 26 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 23 disputed service charge items at Fox Street Village, 30 Fox Street, Liverpool and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Fox Street Village, 30 Fox Street, Liverpool
Decision date: 26 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Xenia Estates Services Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2023) | £3,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2023) | £6,989.97 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2023) | £8,155 | £2,500 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2023) | £960 | £960 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £556.63 | £556.63 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £4,572.93 | £4,572.93 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £65.63 | £65.63 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2023) | £450 | £450 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £450 | £450 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2023) | £5,000 | £5,000 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024) | £6,000 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2024) | £20,740.48 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2024) | £30,000 | £0 | conceded | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2024) | £17,522 | £4,572.93 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Other charges (2024) | £3,250 | £1,750 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2024) | £17,374.25 | £2,500 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2024) | £2,761 | £2,761 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £576 | £576 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £1,570.69 | £1,570.69 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2024) | £395 | £395 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024) | £544 | £544 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024) | £5,000 | £5,000 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The respondent was unable to produce any evidence of either the supply or an invoice or payment for the supply. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not allow this item.”
“The Respondents were unable to provide a satisfactory explanation as to how and why these fees were incurred and on that basis the Tribunal was not prepared to allow any recovery in respect of that item.”
“the standard of the site was poor and that the actual services provided could not justify a management fee which amounted to over a third of the total service charge claimed after the discount for electricity.”
“the Respondents had provided evidence of payments for those services, and the Tribunal was satisfied that they had been provided and were reasonable.”
“the Respondents had provided evidence of payments for those services, and the Tribunal was satisfied that they had been provided and were reasonable.”
“the Respondents had provided evidence of payments for those services, and the Tribunal was satisfied that they had been provided and were reasonable.”
“Despite directions requiring the Respondents to produce the service charge accounts for 2023 and 2024 these were not produced until the outset of the hearing when the Respondents produced summaries of the actual service charge spend for both years (set out against the budgets) along with some additional evidence of the amounts spent.”
“they were not able to assist the Tribunal with how the fee had been calculated.”
“the standard of the site was poor and that the actual services provided could not justify a management fee which amounted to over a third of the total service charge claimed after the discount for electricity.”
“there was cogent evidence from the Applicants that the increase in fees for the waste management was as a result of the Landlord's management company failing to properly manage the bins on site which led to having to change the provider. The Respondents provided some evidence of attempts to address this issue but these appeared to be limited to sending one or two circulars to the residents.”
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.