MAN/00CX/LSC/2018/0021 — service charge decision
In MAN/00CX/LSC/2018/0021, decided 31 October 2019, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Various at Watermill Court and Woodcote Fold, Oakworth, Keighley, West Yorkshire and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Various at Watermill Court and Woodcote Fold, Oakworth, Keighley, West Yorkshire
Decision date: 31 October 2019
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Andrew Egerton / Dickinson Harrison (RBM) Ltd T/A Hunters RBM.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2016/17) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2016/17) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016/17) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2016/17) | £29.70 | £29.70 | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2017/18) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2016/17) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“MSL invoice 6002 of 6 January 2017 of which £1700 is disallowed.”
“MSL invoice 6670 of 24 July 2017, which is limited to £1440, being the amount for which the applicant contends”
“The cost of any MSL tankering, post 28 February 2017, which is disallowed to the extent that collection and disposal exceeds £1000 per tanker load.”
“We find that the decision to replace the sewage Treatment plant was not unreasonable.”
“Item 2: pumping station replacement. We accept the force of Mr. Egerton's evidence that, apart from de-ragging, the pump has been faultless since it was installed along with an industrial standard control board.”
“Item 3: water sampling. We do not find the costs to have been unreasonably incurred.”
“The MSL report may have been retrospective, but at least, in the absence of bad faith (of which there is no evidence) it is a report based on actual events and not in any way speculative. The estimate put forward by the applicant, is based on limited inspection, and hedged with many conditions and provisos.”
“Mr Happs' evidence is challenged on the basis that he was involved in advising the previous manager (effectively Mr Cullen), and whatever the extent of his input and expertise, the plant did not work consistently well. If the problem solving was as easy as he now contends it could and should have been addressed years ago.”
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.