MAN/00CB/LSC/2017/0062 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CB/LSC/2017/0062, decided 10 January 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 20 disputed service charge items at 61, Ashville Road, Prenton, Birkenhead and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 61, Ashville Road, Prenton, Birkenhead
Decision date: 10 January 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019/20) | £350 | £350 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020/21) | £222 | £0 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/20) | £490 | £440 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020/21) | £419 | £121 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2019/20) | £1,675.20 | £1,515.20 | Reduced | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Major works (2019/20) | £2,200 | £2,200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020/21) | £1,022.38 | £991.78 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Major works (2020/21) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/20) | £160 | £160 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019/20) | £1,748 | £780 | Reduced | Duplication of charges, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Gardening & grounds (2020/21) | £1,570 | £498 | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2021/22) | £1,860 | £1,860 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £1,259.48 | £1,259.48 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £200 | £200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019/20) | £200 | £200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020/21) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021/22) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020/21) | £881.98 | £881.98 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22) | £416 | £416 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021/22) | £82 | £82 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the CCTV costs related to the upgrading of the system to provide 4 cameras and a new hard drive”
“the Tribunal concludes that there has been some duplication of work as a result of initially defective works for which the Applicant appears not to have sought any redress from the contractor(s) responsible”
“the Applicant has failed to provide an invoice for a payment of £50 to G Fogg and could only provide limited evidence of the works undertaken”
“the Applicant has failed to provide an invoice for a payment of £270 to Bright Sparks and could only provide limited evidence of the works undertaken”
“In accordance with s20B (1) of the 1985 Act, the Respondent is not liable to pay these amounts and the amount of £516.80 is reduced by £160 to £356.80 with an aggregate reduced figure of £1515.20”
“the scaffolding contractor chosen was significantly cheaper than the other quoted contractor”
“the Tribunal considered that the Applicant appears to have learnt very little from its previous experience of proceedings before the tribunal”
“despite both parties having been through the tribunal process previously to determine almost identical issues as those covered by the Application, neither party had provided satisfactory evidence to the Tribunal in support of their claims”
“the Respondent's defence to the Application appears to comprise substantially a complaint about the management of the Property by the Applicant. In particular, there was little evidence produced by the Respondent in support of his challenge to the reasonableness and/or payability of the items of expenditure upon which the service charges are calculated”
“Such concerns appear to have been given further legitimacy by the Applicant's refusal to produce invoice/receipts evidencing expenditure to the Respondent. Whilst it is acknowledged in this Decision that there is no legal right on the Respondent's part to the production of invoices, it appears to the Tribunal that the Applicant might have been able to satisfy some/all of the Respondent's concerns by demonstrating greater transparency in its dealings, an approach which might have avoided the parties once again being involved in proceedings before the Tribunal.”
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.