MAN/00DA/LSC/2025/0640 — service charge decision
In MAN/00DA/LSC/2025/0640, decided 29 June 2026, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at Flat 14 Arthington House, 30 Westfield Road, Leeds, LS3 1DE and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 14 Arthington House, 30 Westfield Road, Leeds, LS3 1DE
Decision date: 29 June 2026
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2024/25-2026/27) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024/25) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2024/25-2026/27) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25-2025/26) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2024/25-2026/27) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25-2026/27) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2024/25-2025/26) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2024/25-2026/27) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2024/25-2026/27) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2024/25-2026/27) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determined that the cleaning costs fall within the service charge provisions of the Agreement and are payable... the standard of the service was reasonable relative to the cost of the same, having reference to the audit dated 9 December 2024 which recorded the standards broadly as 'acceptable'.”
“the Respondent had charged the Applicant £1.72 per week for 2024/25”
“The Tribunal determined that the costs of servicing and maintenance were therefore payable... the Applicant had produced no evidence or other identified basis for suggesting the sums were excessive and thus determined that the charges were reasonable in amount.”
“the Tribunal determined that this item was payable... the barrier itself provides a measure of security for the site and that the weekly charges were relatively nominal in amount.”
“the Applicant has not demonstrated that the amounts charged were excessive relative to the services provided... the fuel supplies/electricity costs are reasonable in amount.”
“it determined that this item was payable and, in the absence of any evidence from the Applicant that the charges were excessive (and noting that they were not excessive on their face either), that the charges were reasonable in amount.”
“The Tribunal pointed out that said letter was in response to a complaint from the Applicant, and not a formal consultation letter.”
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.