MAN/30UK/LSC/2022/0039 — service charge decision
In MAN/30UK/LSC/2022/0039, decided 12 October 2023, the First-tier Tribunal considered 9 disputed service charge items at Centenary Mill, Court New Hall Lane, Preston PR1 5JH and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Centenary Mill, Court New Hall Lane, Preston PR1 5JH
Decision date: 12 October 2023
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Homestead Consultancy Services (HCL).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2021) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Cleaning (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2019) | — | — | Allowed in full | Other grounds |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“The contract permitted Homestead to retain the commission and the Applicant had negotiated the contract with Homestead. The Defendant did not produce any comparative evidence for buildings insurance in support of his argument.”
“The Tribunal considered that there would be a good deal of management required for a Right to Manage Company for a building which is complex and came with a number of inherent defects and problems and that it was prudent for a managing agent to recognize and adequately charge for the set up costs.”
“The Managing Agent had changed their charging methods to take into account increased company secretarial duties, but the costs had been agreed by the Applicant and the Respondent had not provided any comparables. The Tribunal found these costs reasonable.”
“in the absence of evidence that works were not being carried out to an acceptable standard at a reasonable cost, the Tribunal found the charges to be reasonable.”
“in the absence of evidence that works were not being carried out to an acceptable standard at a reasonable cost, the Tribunal found the charges to be reasonable.”
“in the absence of evidence that works were not being carried out to an acceptable standard at a reasonable cost, the Tribunal found the charges to be reasonable.”
“The square footage provided in evidence was not accurate and it ought to have been apparent to the Applicant that the Tribunal was being misled.”
“The Applicant's statement of case at paragraph 23 is simply untrue, as was the explanation at the hearing that to get some service charge was better than getting no service charge was also untrue given the freeholder should have been paying the equivalent service charge for any empty unit.”
“The original version was a 1147 page PDF document with no index or navigation and would have made the hearing extremely difficult.”
“He appeared to expect the Tribunal to look at the documentation he presented and work out the case he was trying to make. Whilst recognising the Respondent was a litigant in person, the directions were fairly clear and the Respondent by failing to properly set out his case by way of a statement helped neither himself or the Tribunal.”
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.