MAN/30UH/LSC/2020/0093 — service charge decision
In MAN/30UH/LSC/2020/0093, decided 21 February 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Flat 49, Lakeland House, Marine Road, Morecambe and found largely for the leaseholder: 5 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 49, Lakeland House, Marine Road, Morecambe
Decision date: 21 February 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2019) | £775 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2019) | £743 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2019) | £60 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Administration charges (2019) | £96 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2019) | £58.21 | — | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
Key passages (verbatim)
“as at the date of the Application, the Respondent was seeking payment from the Applicant of the sum of £775 for service charges incurred in respect of periods prior to the Applicant's ownership of the Property and for which the Tribunal considered it was difficult to see how any liability to pay them could attach to the Applicant.”
“none of the above are chargeable as service charge and are not therefore within the Tribunal's jurisdiction within the context of the Application”
“none of the above are chargeable as service charge and are not therefore within the Tribunal's jurisdiction within the context of the Application”
“none of the above are chargeable as service charge and are not therefore within the Tribunal's jurisdiction within the context of the Application”
“none of the above are chargeable as service charge and are not therefore within the Tribunal's jurisdiction within the context of the Application”
“the evidence presented to the Tribunal supported the Applicant's position that he was not liable for these service charges but that the Respondent's refusal to acknowledge this had both resulted in the issue of the Application by the Applicant and the Respondent's defence of it until its receipt of payment of the charges from an unrelated 3rd party in or around 16 September 2020”
“the Tribunal noted that the Respondent had not considered it appropriate to separately notify the Applicant and/or the Tribunal of the payment but chose to include its acknowledgment of receipt within the terms of its Statement of Case.”
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.