MAN/00EJ/LSC/2020/0070 — service charge decision
In MAN/00EJ/LSC/2020/0070, decided 1 January 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 32 disputed service charge items at 3 & 9 Magdalene Court, Consett, County Durham and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 3 & 9 Magdalene Court, Consett, County Durham
Decision date: 1 January 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017/18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2017/18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017/18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017/18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2017/18) | £2,660 | £2,660 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2018/19) | £3,125 | £2,800 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Gardening & grounds (2019/20) | — | £2,940 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Staffing & concierge (2017/18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2019/20) | — | £434.82 | conceded | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019/20) | — | — | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Lifts (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | £3,559.85 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Other charges (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2017/18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2018/19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019/20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014/15) | — | — | conceded | No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Other charges (2015/16) | — | — | conceded | No Section 21B summary of rights |
| Other charges (2016/17) | — | — | conceded | No Section 21B summary of rights |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal was persuaded but by the Respondent's evidence that the amount charged to the residents in respect of the monitoring services under the contract fell below the threshold for consultation and was correctly charged”
“the annual sum for each year to be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount”
“the annual sum for each year to be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount”
“we found no persuasive evidence that the annual sum involved was excessive”
“we further determined the sums to be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount for each year”
“The services are clearly necessary for safety of the block and its occupiers. We were presented with no persuasive evidence of the availability of a lower cost and determined the sum to be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount for each year.”
“the Respondent had recognised that these methods were inconsistent, in some respects unfair and in opposition to its own methodology of apportioning such charges relative to development size, or requiring invoicing to be scheme-specific.”
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.