MAN/00CG/LSC/2019/0048 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CG/LSC/2019/0048, decided 30 November 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Various at Low Matlock Lane, Loxley Works, Loxley, Sheffield and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various at Low Matlock Lane, Loxley Works, Loxley, Sheffield
Decision date: 30 November 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Loxley Works Management Company (LWMC).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016) | £3,473 | £1,800 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2017) | £2,674 | £2,674 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | £1,081 | £1,081 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £2,833 | £2,833 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2016-2020) | £2,000 | £1,000 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2019-20) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Other grounds |
| Administration charges | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“even the £2881 is unreasonably high. Doing the best that we can to allow for contingencies, and based on OMDI quotation we would regard £1800 as a reasonable sum.”
“Whilst these may be considered to be on the high side, we had no evidence of alternative quotations for general maintenance of the system, and the charges are not so high as to be obviously unreasonable.”
“Whilst these may be considered to be on the high side, we had no evidence of alternative quotations for general maintenance of the system, and the charges are not so high as to be obviously unreasonable.”
“Whilst these may be considered to be on the high side, we had no evidence of alternative quotations for general maintenance of the system, and the charges are not so high as to be obviously unreasonable.”
“we are not persuaded that the electricity charges are unreasonably incurred, but take into account this issue as some evidence of mismanagement, when we consider the challenge to the LWMC management charge.”
“we do not find the monthly general maintenance charge to be unreasonable. There may be some items where reasonableness is borderline, but it would be disproportionate in this case to embark on a forensic analysis of such details.”
“It is apparent that the management has been carried out in an unsatisfactory way. No regard has been had to any of the available advice or Codes of Practice. The management has been ad hoc and reactive rather than strategic and considered. It was understandable that CHL interposed LWMC between CHL, (as developer and Lessor) and the Lessees, (as tenants) but CHL has imposed a management burden upon Mr Hignall that, it is apparent to us, he was not trained to bear. There are many examples of this, the most glaring of which are the ineffective demands in breach of Section 21B of Landlord & Tenant Act 1985; the failure to address S20 issues re the Blower/pump replacement (even to seek dispensation) and the failure to regularise the Electricity account; imposing unjustified late payment penalties (which were refunded).”
“The challenge by the applicants would have been better dealt with if LWMC had at least queried the second account from Crucial Engineering, and responded more helpfully and positively to the lessees. This is a management issue rather than a gate issue.”
“Mr Campbell's explanation was unconvincing.”
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.