MAN/30UH/LDC/2024/0048 — service charge decision
In MAN/30UH/LDC/2024/0048, decided 8 May 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Mearsbeck Apartments, Sefton Road, Morecambe LA3 1DZ and reached a mixed result: 4 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Mearsbeck Apartments, Sefton Road, Morecambe LA3 1DZ
Decision date: 8 May 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group Ltd (RMG).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £2,448 | £2,448 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2020) | £10,963.38 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Legal & professional costs (2020) | £4,888.85 | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2020) | £21,498.12 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Major works (2020) | £2,577.60 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | No Section 20 consultation, Works not necessary, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Section 20ZA dispensation: conditional.
Key passages (verbatim)
“it was not unreasonable to expect the flat owners to have had to pay for the fees referred to in paragraph 3. Nevertheless…the flat owners' contribution to Thomason's fees (as detailed in both paragraphs 3 and 6) should have been capped at £5000”
“the flat owners should not have had to pay for any of Buildzone's works (referred to in its invoices detailed in paragraphs 5,7, and 8 of the Schedule to the 2024 Decision)”
“the flat owners' contribution to Thomason's fees (as detailed in both paragraphs 3 and 6) should have been capped at £5000”
“the flat owners should not have had to pay for any of Buildzone's works (referred to in its invoices detailed in paragraphs 5,7, and 8 of the Schedule to the 2024 Decision)”
“the flat owners should not have had to pay for any of Buildzone's works (referred to in its invoices detailed in paragraphs 5,7, and 8 of the Schedule to the 2024 Decision)”
“RMG by its actions and in the conduct of the applications seems to have treated the consultation requirements as 'an optional extra' which could be ignored for years, or indefinitely, and that however late it might be in applying for dispensation, that should be granted unconditionally.”
“The Tribunal found many of the RMG's submissions to be largely self-serving, justifying particular actions as being part of a sequential process, and attempting to point the finger of responsibility at others”
“submissions (such as in paragraphs 53, 54, 77, and 78 of its statement of case) of 'shortcomings' by the leaseholders in the top floor flats were found to be both extraordinary and outrageous”
“somewhat extraordinarily, the minutes of the December 2019 committee meeting appear to indicate that the flat owner writing those minutes had a better understanding of how the consultation requirements should have then been operating than RMG”
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.