MAN/00CG/LSC/2024/0607 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CG/LSC/2024/0607, decided 12 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 12 disputed service charge items at 23-27 (incl. Flats 23A and 23B) Taplin Road, Sheffield S6 4JD and reached a mixed result: 6 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 23-27 (incl. Flats 23A and 23B) Taplin Road, Sheffield S6 4JD
Decision date: 12 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Craven Wildsmith / Regent Serviced Suites (RSS).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019/2020) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2019/2020) | — | £168 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2020/2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Management fees (2020/2021) | — | £200 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020/2021) | — | £250 | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Other charges (2020/2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020/2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2020/2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020/2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021/2022) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022/2023) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Other charges (2023/2024) | £1,700 | £1,700 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal concludes that the terms of the Lease required the Respondent to ensure that the interests of the Applicants were noted in the buildings insurance policy, that this was a condition precedent, and that it was a condition that the Respondent failed to comply with.”
“the cost of £168 per leaseholder over the course of a year (equivalent to £14 per month) is very modest. The Tribunal determines that this sum was payable by each of the Applicants.”
“For the same reasons, the Tribunal determines that none of the buildings insurance costs for this period were payable by the Applicants.”
“the cost increased to £200 – which is still a relatively modest amount. For the same reasons, the Tribunal determines that this sum was payable by each of the Applicants.”
“the Respondent had failed to comply with the leaseholder consultation requirements of Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 … the Tribunal determines that the sum of £250 was payable by each of the Applicants under this heading.”
“Certain items (Audit Fee, Unreceipted Expenses, Personal Use Items) had been conceded by the Respondent as not being payable by the Applicants.”
“The Tribunal was deeply unimpressed with Michael Lewis as a leasehold property manager, in particular. He was open about the fact that his expertise was mainly in managing short-term lets. In the context of the current proceedings, his utter lack of knowledge of leasehold legislation was deplorable, and his attitude towards such regulations came across as ignorant at best, or dismissive at worst. He was poorly prepared to appear in front of a Tribunal which specialises in this field of law, and his answers to questions put by the Tribunal were frequently found wanting. The Tribunal considers that he is manifestly not fit or competent to manage the Applicants' premises.”
“His lack of residential knowledge and experience is clearly demonstrated in the Respondent's truly woeful and persistent failures to comply with residential landlord and tenant laws, which are in many ways considerably more detailed and onerous upon landlords. These have led, incontrovertibly, to the Respondent making unlawful and unreasonable demands for payment of service charges, as demonstrated in the Tribunal's findings in the first part of this decision.”
“it appears to the Tribunal that the Respondent and its agents view the Property as primarily a commercial endeavour, and that the Applicants' residential premises are viewed by them as an irritating distraction from the main business of being a commercial landlord.”
“The Tribunal commented that it was astonishing that the Fire Risk Assessment was 7 years old.”
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.