MAN/00FA/LSC/2019/0010 — service charge decision
In MAN/00FA/LSC/2019/0010, decided 29 November 2019, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at 17 Vauxhall Grove, Walker Street, Hull and found largely for the landlord: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 17 Vauxhall Grove, Walker Street, Hull
Decision date: 29 November 2019
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group (RMG).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2016-17) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2018-19) | £34 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Management fees (2017-18) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Reserve fund contributions (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2016-17) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2016-17) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2016-17) | £849 | £849 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2017-18) | £859 | £859 | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2018-19) | £875 | £875 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2016-17) | £126.36 | £126.36 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2017-18) | £137.88 | £137.88 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £160.80 | £160.80 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that £50.27 net per month is a reasonable service charge for service charge year 2016 to 2017.”
“The Tribunal determines that this issue does relate to service charge year 2018 to 2019 and that service charges of £66.95 net per month are reasonable for that year.”
“The Tribunal determines that although £34 was charged it was repaid.”
“The Respondent's case is that he agrees that these charges should not have been made and accepts that management was charged for that year. The charges were repaid.”
“The Tribunal is mindful of the responsibilities that the Respondent has retained in relation to the repair of these bungalows and considers a monthly maintenance reserve of £31.90 to be within the band of reasonable charges.”
“The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that bearing in mind the repairs and large maintenance projects that might have to be undertaken it is both permissible under the terms of the lease and reasonable to charge the Applicant for contributions to this fund, during all three service charge years being considered.”
“This caused an unnecessary confusion, but it is evident from the account that this did happen.”
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.