MAN/00CH/LSC/2019/0037 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CH/LSC/2019/0037, decided 21 March 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at 24 Goldstone, Pimlico Court, Kells Lane, Gateshead NE9 5HW and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 24 Goldstone, Pimlico Court, Kells Lane, Gateshead NE9 5HW
Decision date: 21 March 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Watson.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017-18) | £15 | £15 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £24 | £24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2017-18) | £16.50 | £16.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £207.10 | £207.10 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2017-18) | £4,569.02 | £4,569.02 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2017-18) | £35.77 | £23.85 | Reduced | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2017-18) | £7.32 | £0 | conceded | — |
| Administration charges (2017-18) | £442.20 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the tribunal considered that the cost of maintenance of the fire alarm system, being part of the building, was recoverable through the service charge”
“The £24 charge to the Respondent is recoverable as service charge under the terms of the Lease.”
“the tribunal therefore determined the accountancy fee of £16.50 to be recoverable as service charge under the terms of the Lease”
“The tribunal therefore considered the management fee of £207.10 to be recoverable as service charge under the terms of the Lease.”
“the tribunal considered the contribution of £4,569.02 for major works and professional fees to be recoverable as service charge under the terms of the Lease”
“the tribunal determined that the costs of external lighting to garages and private street lighting are not recoverable as service charge under the provisions of the Lease”
“there were apparent omissions even in this latest set of papers and that there was no indexed and paginated hearing bundle despite earlier Directions in this respect, the latest such Direction having been issued on 13 January 2022.”
“the Respondent himself appeared to have approached the case in a haphazard and unfocused manner, raising matters in the course of the proceedings that were not directly relevant to the issues before the First-tier 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.