MAN/00CG/LSC/2025/0628 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CG/LSC/2025/0628, decided 4 July 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at Apartment 904, Metis, 1 Scotland Street, Sheffield, S3 7AT and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 904, Metis, 1 Scotland Street, Sheffield, S3 7AT
Decision date: 4 July 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall & Rittner Ltd (Matthew Kirk).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2020) | £2,048.21 | £2,048.21 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | £4,153.15 | £4,153.15 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2021) | — | £366 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £1,484.40 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Respondent has not provided details of any specific challenges to any element of the service charges and has not produced any evidence in support, despite being required to do so in the Directions.”
“The Tribunal therefore determines that the Respondent has not satisfied the Tribunal that there is a prima facie case that the service charges for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 are unreasonable.”
“The Tribunal determines that it was reasonable for the Applicant to send the demands and letters resulting in the administration charges which were applied for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021 and that, save for the legal costs addressed below, they are reasonable in amount.”
“The Tribunal finds that it is bound by the Avon Ground Rents case regarding the legal fees in question and the costs of these proceedings (both in the County Court and First-tier Tribunal). As such, it does not have jurisdiction to determine the same.”
“It did not, however, identify the service charge costs or items and any administration costs which are in dispute by means of a schedule or spreadsheet.”
“The Respondent has not provided details of any specific challenges to any element of the service charges and has not produced any evidence in support, despite being required to do so in the Directions.”
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.