MAN/00CX/LAC/2018/0016 & others — service charge decision
In MAN/00CX/LAC/2018/0016 & others, decided 3 December 2021, the First-tier Tribunal considered 6 disputed service charge items at Various at Gatehaus Block, Leeds Road, Bradford and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various at Gatehaus Block, Leeds Road, Bradford
Decision date: 3 December 2021
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Rendall and Rittner (formerly Braemar Estates (Residential) Limited).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2014-2019) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“He readily agreed that the condition of the building is not ideal but cleaning was being carried out and had been 'since day 1.' Two cleaners on site all the time who in his opinion 'do a very good job'.”
“Mr. Dugden pointed out that the Respondent had not questioned charges before despite receiving the accounts every year.”
“The Applicant asserted that the amount charged was excessive for 3 lifts. She stated that maintenance should be for call out charges and repairs and inspection not for consultancy.”
“Mr. Dugdale told the Tribunal that he looks after a number of blocks across the country. The Gatehaus was a difficult block, with anti social behaviour fire safety issues, etc. It was 'rife' with issues such as prostitution when they took over management of the building.”
“Mr. Dugdale said that no major repairs requiring consultation had been carried out; he agreed the common areas were not great, but no charges had been made for works not done.”
“The Tribunal found that all administration charges imposed by the Respondent upon the Applicant have been the subject of earlier County Court proceedings and consequently the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine them.”
“The Tribunal had sympathy for the Applicant, who had invested in what was marketed as a high end residential development in a prominent position in the city of Bradford. Unfortunately what she was promised was not what was delivered.”
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.