MAN/30DH/LSC/2019/0103 — service charge decision
In MAN/30DH/LSC/2019/0103, decided 7 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at 80 Lune Square Damside Street Lancaster and reached a mixed result: 7 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 80 Lune Square Damside Street Lancaster
Decision date: 7 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Warwick Estates Property Management Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2017) | £162 | — | Disallowed entirely | Leaseholder evidence insufficient |
| Buildings insurance (2017) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2018) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Withdrawn | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £120 | £120 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £50,909 | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | £1,190.50 | £1,190.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Administration charges (2020) | — | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2020) | £420 | £420 | Disallowed entirely | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“we were presented with no persuasive evidence that they did not relate to items which were within the service charge as contemplated by the lease…we found no basis for there to be a refund to the Applicant in the sum claimed (£162)”
“a reduction of 10% of the buildings insurance element of the service charge in service charge years 2017, 2018 and 2019 was appropriate to reflect reasonableness in the amount charged to the Applicant”
“a reduction of 10% of the buildings insurance element of the service charge in service charge years 2017, 2018 and 2019 was appropriate to reflect reasonableness in the amount charged to the Applicant”
“Having found anomalies and certainly one element of cover that we found unreasonably incurred regarding the loss of rental income we determined that a reduction of 10% of the buildings insurance element of the service charge in service charge years 2017, 2018 and 2019 was appropriate”
“The Respondent provided compelling evidence in the form of invoices for expenditure and we determined that the charges were payable by the Applicant.”
“The Tribunal found no evidence presented to it that these item of expense were explicable in any other way than as set out by the Respondent in the Scott Schedule”
“we identified no documents proving cover being in place between 19 March 2017 and 31 May 2017 – although that period is outside those at issue. There was a major flood in December 2015 causing multiple claims and then 'resilience' works at the block so as to mitigate premium increase. There was a revaluation of the block in June 2019 by Earl Kendrick Associates Limited and this resulted in mid-term adjustment of the premium. There was mis-invoicing by the insurance broker concerning the 1 June 2018 renewal concerning terrorism insurance.”
“We found the explanation of who undertook the particular work to be inconsistent. In the Scott Schedule it is stated to be Warwick Estates. In oral evidence Mr Thompson stated that it was by a 'Solicitors enquiry team'.”
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.