MAN/00CH/LSC/2022/0031 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CH/LSC/2022/0031, decided 9 June 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Flat 68 Friars Wharf Apartments, Green Lane, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear and reached a mixed result: 8 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 68 Friars Wharf Apartments, Green Lane, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear
Decision date: 9 June 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Trinity (Estates) Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utilities (2020-21) | £242.52 | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Utilities (2021-22) | £389.74 | — | Disallowed entirely | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-21) | £515.51 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021-22) | £214.12 | £0 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £250 | £0 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019-20) | £270.59 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2019-22) | £37.79 | £37.79 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019-22) | £77.65 | £0 | Reduced | Poor standard of work |
| Management fees (2019-22) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The 'additional' charges of £20,614 seem to have arisen indirectly from the initial time taken to transfer the account to the landlord... this element of the Applicant's case is not proved.”
“The further 'additional' charges of £33,128 from October 2021 to October 2022 are even more remote... Again, this element is not proved.”
“The Tribunal does not find that the Applicant would be entitled to set-off for these figures, since it is difficult to establish the point at which the attempted running repairs became futile without more specific evidence.”
“Higher running costs due to failure of the Heat Pumps. Total cost estimated to be £18,200 (Applicant's share = £214.12). For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds in the Applicant's favour in full on this sum.”
“The Tribunal finds that the Applicant would be entitled to equitable set-off in relation to general damages and assesses the value of the same at £250 for the aggregate of the periods in question.”
“Reallocation of funds back into the main budget which are currently ringfenced for the replacement of a heat pump – Ringfenced funds = £23,000 (Applicant's share = £270.59)... The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make orders in those terms.”
“Zenith appears not to have conducted a proper assessment of the condition of the Heat Pumps until the heating failures started in February 2021. The Tribunal consider this to have been too long an antecedent period without proper maintenance.”
“The Tribunal does not accept that the need to comply with Section 20 consultations is a viable excuse for the delay in this case, since a Section 20 consultation can be concluded in a little over two months if the landlord acts with alacrity, and if the situation is urgent then it is open to the landlord to seek dispensation from the Tribunal (even after carrying out the works, if absolutely necessary). The Respondent has at all material times had the benefit of instructing professional leasehold managing agents who ought to know this. No adequate explanation has been offered as to the reasons for the gaps in time between the various stages of consultation, nor indeed why the repairs are still outstanding.”
“The late submission of the witness statement of Mr Christopher Tomkins, exhibiting emails and information from James Cooper which had clearly only been obtained a matter of days beforehand, is the most striking example of this. The Tribunal was also concerned that the Respondent adduced that evidence at a very late stage in the proceedings, which resulted in considerable disruption to the Tribunal's management of the case.”
“Trinity seem to have managed the Building more competently since April 2022 and have both resolved the original electricity dispute and commissioned the Section 20 process for the works to the Heat Pump(s), although the Section 20 process has taken an inexplicably long time.”
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.