MAN/16UD/LSC/2019/0060 — service charge decision
In MAN/16UD/LSC/2019/0060, decided 6 January 2020, the First-tier Tribunal considered 4 disputed service charge items at 51 East Dale Street, Carlisle, CA2 5JX and found largely for the leaseholder: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 51 East Dale Street, Carlisle, CA2 5JX
Decision date: 6 January 2020
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: The Bulman Partnership / Extraurban Property Management Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018-19) | £160 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Management fees (2018-19) | £200 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Fee excessive for service delivered |
| Other charges (2018-19) | £40 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018-19) | £80 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Demand formally invalid, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the sum demanded does not accord with the terms of the lease, nor does it comply with the relevant legislation. The Tribunal therefore determines that the Demand the applicant seeks to rely upon is invalid and of no effect.”
“the proper professional fees that might be considered reasonable in respect of the management service provided should be significantly less than those demanded.”
“the sum demanded does not accord with the terms of the lease, nor does it comply with the relevant legislation.”
“the sum demanded does not accord with the terms of the lease, nor does it comply with the relevant legislation. The Tribunal therefore determines that the Demand the applicant seeks to rely upon is invalid and of no effect.”
“the applicant has failed to establish that it has any standing in these proceedings. It has failed to establish to whom the service charge is payable under the lease although the Tribunal notes that the demand appears to be issued in the name of Extraurban Property Management Ltd.”
“The applicant was directed to provide a statement of case that specifies the amount of the service charge claimed by reference to the lease and to explain the basis on which the charges have been calculated and apportioned. That was not done.”
“The draft undated management accounts produced by the applicant do not reflect the service charge period referenced in the lease, nor do they support the sums claimed from the respondent. The claim has not been certified by the lessor's surveyor.”
“Following receipt of the respondents submission but outside of the timescale in which the applicant was directed by the Tribunal that it may provide a short supplemental statement, the applicant provided a variety of additional information to the Tribunal”
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.