MAN/00FF/LSC/2021/0079 — service charge decision
In MAN/00FF/LSC/2021/0079, decided 11 November 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 15 disputed service charge items at Lambert Court, Buckingham Court and Bishophill Senior, York and reached a mixed result: 11 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Lambert Court, Buckingham Court and Bishophill Senior, York
Decision date: 11 November 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Accent Housing Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £3,666.89 | £2,989.67 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Repairs & maintenance (2017-18) | £2,970.90 | £2,293.68 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2021-22) | £97,209.90 | £89,971.90 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2017-18) | £8,520.62 | £8,000 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £10,260 | £8,000 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2019-20) | £10,260 | £6,750 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £9,730 | £8,000 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Management fees (2021-22) | £9,720 | £8,000 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £3,897.64 | £2,095.16 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2020-21) | £2,790.77 | £2,095.16 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Other charges (2021-22) | £2,828.49 | £2,095.16 | Reduced | Other grounds |
| Gardening & grounds | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“These overcharges have been removed from the reactive repairs figure for the service charge year ending 31 March 2019, in the expectation that once Mr Longstaff's investigations became apparent in 2019/2020 Accent are likely to have instituted more careful scrutiny of ESH invoicing.”
“The Applicants' service charge accounts are payable as originally charged save for the figures shown in bold type in the table below which shall be substituted for the original service charge figures shown in brackets.”
“The Tribunal finds that the cost of supplying and fitting 7 doors is to be removed from the service charge account. Calculating this cost from ESH's quotation breakdown which indicates that the cost of a door was £620 and the cost of fitting was £250 per unit, the amount by which this invoice should be reduced is £7,238 after the addition of VAT.”
“the Tribunal considers that a management charge of £8000 per year is reasonable”
“the Tribunal considers that a management charge of £8000 per year is reasonable”
“the year ending 31 March 2020 when there were serious failures to oversee repair costs. In that year, the management fee is reduced to £6750.”
“The Tribunal finds that ESH were careless in failing to apply the correct codes and in Accent were careless in failing to check and identify the errors. The Tribunal was told that the invoices were checked by Accent at the end of each year but if this occurred it was badly done in more than one year. As a result there was a regular and sustained practice, whether or not deliberate, of overcharging the Applicants.”
“It is unfortunate that Accent have not responded more positively to Mr Longstaff's investigation, particularly since his conclusions were, in the main, unchallenged. He was obliged to make this application in order to obtain the repair cost reductions to which the leaseholders were entitled.”
“However by the date of the hearing Accent had not taken up the overcharges with ESH despite the fact that Mr Longstaff's evidence about them was not challenged.”
“The oral and written evidence before the Tribunal was chaotic and did not enable the Tribunal to identify the years in which Accent overcharged the leaseholders by £677.22 as identified at paragraphs 36 to 45 above.”
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.