MAN/00DA/LSC/2022/0042 — service charge decision
In MAN/00DA/LSC/2022/0042, decided 23 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Flat 4, 38 Nursery Lane, Leeds LS17 7HN and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 4, 38 Nursery Lane, Leeds LS17 7HN
Decision date: 23 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administration charges (2019) | £526 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019) | £260 | £260 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £24 | £24 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £19 | £19 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | £220 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Reserve fund contributions (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | £0 | £0 | Withdrawn | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“clause 2(13) of the lease is not wide enough to capture these charges as they are not incidental to the preparation and service of a section 146 notice and accordingly they are not payable under schedule 11 as there is no contractual basis for them to be charged.”
“Accountancy fees of £260 are reasonable and payable. The lease requires annual accounts and in our expert view there is nothing problematic about in-house accountants preparing and charging to produce accounts as a separate item to general management.”
“The amount here is a reasonable and payable sum for the management of a 2-storey purpose build development of 4 flats. It works out at less than £15 per leaseholder per month.”
“This is a nominal sum, and we accept that the service would have been provided, even if not utilised and given it is only £24, we think it reasonable and payable.”
“£19 for postage is 30 pence per leaseholder per year and again might have been included in the management fee but we see no reason why we should decline to confirm this as payable and reasonable.”
“we could see no reasonable reason why a fire risk assessment was required every year on this type of development, given that in our view the risk of fire is low and that there are no significant common parts.”
“Unfortunately, that Order directed the Claimant to refer the matter to the F-tT whereas in the ordinary course of events it should be the court which transfers the matter to the F-tT and it seems that as a result considerable delay occurred.”
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.