MAN/00CA/LSC/2020/0077 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CA/LSC/2020/0077, decided 1 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at 20 and 26 Chindit Close, Formby, Liverpool and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 20 and 26 Chindit Close, Formby, Liverpool
Decision date: 1 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2018-19) | £521.80 | £521.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £2,681.28 | £2,681.28 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £66.26 | £66.26 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £510.06 | £510.06 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £54.86 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Major works (2019-20) | £689.08 | £689.08 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019-20) | £28.44 | £28.44 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £25.88 | £25.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £212.94 | £212.94 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal would consider the costs to be reasonably incurred and the costs themselves reasonable.”
“the work was reasonably undertaken at reasonable cost. The professional experience of the Tribunal members is such that it appreciates that the cost if safe scaffolding is by far the major element of an overall costs total.”
“it relates to drainage from the common parts of the exterior pathways to the building and as such is a charge properly made within the service charge provision.”
“there is no evidence that the work was not required, nor that there is any other evidence of a cost to suggest that this cost is unreasonable.”
“although there is reference to laundry accommodation and clothes drying areas there is no reference to drying equipment nor is there reference to 'associated equipment' as in the case of television aerials.”
“In the absence of any other information to suggest that the work was either unreasonable, or unreasonably costed, the Tribunal is of the view that it is properly charged to the service charge account.”
“The Tribunal was particularly concerned to note that on more than one occasion items had been coded incorrectly into the Respondent's accounting system (noting specifically gutter works referred to as tile replacement and drainage repairs as re-flagging). Such matters only serve to aggravate what should be a better relationship between landlord and tenant.”
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.