MAN/30UH/LSC/2022/0032 — service charge decision
In MAN/30UH/LSC/2022/0032, decided 3 February 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 10 disputed service charge items at 54 Mearsbeck Apartments, Sefton Road, Morecambe and reached a mixed result: 9 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: 54 Mearsbeck Apartments, Sefton Road, Morecambe
Decision date: 3 February 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group Ltd.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2020) | £5,638.75 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2020) | £1,887 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2020) | £2,448 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2019-2020) | £948 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019-2020) | £10,963.38 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-2021) | £4,888.85 | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £21,498.12 | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £2,577.60 | — | Reduced | No Section 20 consultation |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020-2021) | £3,816 | £3,816 | Allowed in full | — |
| Legal & professional costs (2020-2021) | £1,562.28 | — | Disallowed entirely | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Applicants are precluded from making an application under Section 27A in respect of those service charges agreed by their predecessors in title and predating their purchase of the property on 18 September 2020”
“the Applicants are precluded from making an application under Section 27A in respect of those service charges agreed by their predecessors in title”
“the Applicants are precluded from making an application under Section 27A in respect of those service charges agreed by their predecessors in title”
“the Applicants are precluded from making an application under Section 27A in respect of those service charges agreed by their predecessors in title”
“It is also clear from references in RMG's letter of 21 August 2020 [152] that those accounts by then been completed and sent out to the leaseholders, and that they included the invoice for scaffolding costs.”
“those invoices referred to in paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule were for a single set of works and therefore together subject to a cap of £250 per leaseholder”
“This statement appears to confuse the limitations on service charges imposed by Section 20 (which, where relevant, must be considered within any Section 27A application) and the separate provisions contained in Section 20ZA, which are supplementary to the consultation requirements.”
“Legitimate questions remain in the Tribunal's mind as to whether the leaseholders have been protected from paying for inappropriate works or paying more than would be appropriate. What cannot be denied is that substantial sums have been spent without the desired aim being achieved. The evidence is that Mr Harris was suffering leaks from before 2019 and that he is still suffering them now.”
“Ms Perrin and Ms Lloyd later said that the reason for the delay in the dispensation application was due to not knowing what the figures might turn out to be but offered no further explanation.”
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.