MAN/00CJ/LSC/2019/0063 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CJ/LSC/2019/0063, decided 30 September 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Apartment 29, Forth Banks Tower, Forth Banks, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3PN and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 29, Forth Banks Tower, Forth Banks, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3PN
Decision date: 30 September 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Y&Y Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2019) | £24,917.31 | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Major works (2019) | £332,230.80 | £332,230.80 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £36,545.39 | £36,545.39 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal determines that the reasonable sum recoverable from the Applicant, paying his due proportion of the service charge, relating to the managing agent's fee should be no more than 3% of the major works costs and more particularly should be capped at £11,810.81 (net of VAT).”
“the Tribunal must find that the estimated costs involved for the major works (set out in paragraph 18) other than the fee of the managing agent are reasonably incurred and reasonable as to amount.”
“The fee of the building surveyor has not been presented as disputed by the Applicant.”
“The Tribunal finds no reason to vary the service charge in question for any of Issues 3, 4 or 5.”
“we find no basis to vary the service charge in question for any of Issues 6 or 7.”
“the error identified in apportionment of the major works charges (Issue 1) is evidence of misunderstanding by the managing agent of the terms of the lease.”
“there appears to be commonality of interest between the Respondent and its managing agent. It is not clear whether that comes from diligent performance by Y&Y in performing its obligations, or that Y&Y delegates decision-making to its agent regarding not just minor matters at the Block or also major ones such as the spending of in excess of £350,000.”
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.