MAN/16UG/LSC/2023/0021 — service charge decision
In MAN/16UG/LSC/2023/0021, decided 1 November 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Apartment 4, Sedgwick House, Sedgwick, Kendal and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartment 4, Sedgwick House, Sedgwick, Kendal
Decision date: 1 November 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lifts (2016-17) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2017-18) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2018-19) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2022-23) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2023-24) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“the amount of the service charges is not in issue, their collection by the Respondent for the years ending 31 July 2017 – 19 and 2023 – 24 is authorised by the lease, and the charges are payable by the Applicants”
“the amount of the service charges is not in issue, their collection by the Respondent for the years ending 31 July 2017 – 19 and 2023 – 24 is authorised by the lease, and the charges are payable by the Applicants”
“the amount of the service charges is not in issue, their collection by the Respondent for the years ending 31 July 2017 – 19 and 2023 – 24 is authorised by the lease, and the charges are payable by the Applicants”
“the amount of the service charges is not in issue, their collection by the Respondent for the years ending 31 July 2017 – 19 and 2023 – 24 is authorised by the lease, and the charges are payable by the Applicants”
“the budget for lift maintenance for the year ending 31 July 2024 is payable as demanded subject to any appropriate end of year adjustment”
“The Tribunal considers that the Board's decision to instal a lift was adopted without sufficient discussion with all leaseholders, and has considerable sympathy with Mr and Mrs Parkes regarding this.”
“Because there would be no capital outlay on the part of the Respondent, the Board agreed to the lift installation without holding a general meeting of the shareholder/leaseholders which would have enabled them to consider ongoing costs and to vote on the proposal.”
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.