MAN/00CJ/LSC/2021/0094 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CJ/LSC/2021/0094, decided 7 January 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Apartment 6/19, 55 North Pilgrim Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 6AR and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 6/19, 55 North Pilgrim Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 6AR
Decision date: 7 January 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: 55 Degrees North Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017) | — | £2,451.47 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | — | £2,425.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | — | £2,529.72 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2021) | — | £2,516.65 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2022) | — | £1,534.09 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £926.92 | £0 | conceded | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Administration charges (2021) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: partial.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The amount payable by the Applicant to the Respondent by way of service charge for the service charge financial year 2017 was £2,451.47.”
“The amount payable by the Applicant to the Respondent by way of service charge for the service charge financial year 2018 was £2,425.36.”
“The amount payable by the Applicant to the Respondent by way of service charge for the service charge financial year 2020 was £2,529.72.”
“The amount payable by the Applicant to the Respondent by way of service charge for the service charge financial year 2021 was £2,516.65.”
“The amount payable by the Applicant to the Respondent by way of service charge for the service charge financial year 2022 was £1,534.09.”
“The amount payable by the Applicant to the Respondent by way of service charge for one-off demand of 21st September 2021, and ancillary charges which have arisen thereon was NIL (£0.00).”
“the Applicant's directors have remained fixated upon the various ancillary complaints and remedies that they have sought, despite being warned on numerous occasions that these were matters that the Tribunal could not deal with. This persisted even to the hearing itself, at which the Applicant's directors were unable to explain how their longstanding complaints as to the majority of the service charge issues affected the actual amounts that they were required to pay. The vast majority of the written material presented to the Tribunal appeared to relate to those matters, and the Tribunal concurs with the Respondent's view that the Applicant's directors have made submissions in an overly lengthy, complex and confusing manner.”
“the Tribunal was unimpressed with the lateness of the Respondent's concession regarding the payability of the Renegotiation Costs. The Tribunal had been able to discern the nature of the Applicants' own confusion over the distinction between the costs of the RTM litigation and the renegotiation of the underlying lease relatively quickly, and it should not have taken four years for this issue to have been understood by the Respondent with the benefit of legal representation. Once the issue had been clearly identified, if the Respondent was unwilling or unable to press its case on that aspect then it should have made that decision much earlier.”
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.