MAN/00CE/LSC/2021/0090 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CE/LSC/2021/0090, decided 5 July 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 28 Lancaster Court, Auckley, Doncaster and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 28 Lancaster Court, Auckley, Doncaster
Decision date: 5 July 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Acis Group Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-20) | £20.88 | £20.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £42.92 | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £182.35 | £182.35 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £25.78 | £25.78 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £4.16 | £4.16 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £179.80 | £179.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £19.27 | £19.27 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2019-20) | — | — | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Gardening & grounds (2021-22) | £50.25 | £50.25 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021-22) | £64.36 | £64.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2021-22) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The small repair carried out by the Respondent in this instance was properly charged to the annual service charge account.”
“Each flat owner on the estate benefits from the same cleaning service, and division of the cost by 21 is fair and a correct apportionment.”
“The (reduced) sums charged for fire alarm and emergency lighting testing and servicing in each of the years in question have been calculated or recalculated with sufficient care, and are reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”
“The (reduced) sums charged for fire alarm and emergency lighting testing and servicing in each of the years in question have been calculated or recalculated with sufficient care, and are reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”
“The (reduced) sums charged for fire alarm and emergency lighting testing and servicing in each of the years in question have been calculated or recalculated with sufficient care, and are reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”
“The (reduced) sums charged for fire alarm and emergency lighting testing and servicing in each of the years in question have been calculated or recalculated with sufficient care, and are reasonable and payable by the Applicant.”
“the Respondent has made a number of confusing mistakes in its service charge calculations. Corrections have been made as a result of the Applicant's meticulous examination of her service charge account. As Mr Green pointed out, the consequence is that the Applicant has lost faith in the Respondent. Prior to the issue of this application it seems that the Applicant's queries were not always helpfully answered.”
“this hearing did not justify the use of counsel. All the Applicant's points could be and were fully dealt with by Mr Grant with the support of his colleagues among the Respondent's managers. There were no factual disputes and (other than the potential question of estoppel by convention conceded by Mr Green) no need for legal argument.”
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.