Decision summary

MAN/00DA/LSC/2024/0260 — service charge decision

In MAN/00DA/LSC/2024/0260, decided 13 August 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 1-12 and 14-31 Holmwood, 21 Park Crescent, Leeds and found largely for the landlord: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.

Property: 1-12 and 14-31 Holmwood, 21 Park Crescent, Leeds
Decision date: 13 August 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK

Managing agent named in the decision: Accent Housing / Domus Services.

What was challenged and what the tribunal decided

ItemDemandedAllowedOutcomeGrounds
Management fees (2016-17)£13,216.90£13,216.90Allowed in full
Management fees (2017-18)£12,600£12,600Allowed in full
Management fees (2018-19)£12,599.98£12,599.98Allowed in full
Management fees (2019-20)£12,600£12,600Allowed in full
Management fees (2020-21)£10,800£10,800Allowed in full
Management fees (2021-22)£10,800£10,800Allowed in full
Staffing & concierge (2016-17)Allowed in full
Staffing & concierge (2017-18)Allowed in full
Staffing & concierge (2021-22)Allowed in full
Administration chargesDisallowed entirely

Section 20C order: refused.

Key passages (verbatim)

“the Tribunal relied upon its own knowledge and expertise and determined the charges for the disputed years were reasonable and payable.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal relied upon its own knowledge and expertise and determined the charges for the disputed years were reasonable and payable.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal relied upon its own knowledge and expertise and determined the charges for the disputed years were reasonable and payable.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal relied upon its own knowledge and expertise and determined the charges for the disputed years were reasonable and payable.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal relied upon its own knowledge and expertise and determined the charges for the disputed years were reasonable and payable.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal relied upon its own knowledge and expertise and determined the charges for the disputed years were reasonable and payable.”
On management fees
“the Tribunal noted the comments made regarding the reputations of the Respondent and ancillary companies, but there was no evidence brought before the Tribunal to show this was relevant.”
Of Applicants' reputational arguments

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.