MAN/30UN/LSC/2020/0067 — service charge decision
In MAN/30UN/LSC/2020/0067, decided 22 March 2022, the First-tier Tribunal considered 16 disputed service charge items at Flat 40, Penwortham Hall Gardens, Penwortham, Preston and reached a mixed result: 1 item was reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flat 40, Penwortham Hall Gardens, Penwortham, Preston
Decision date: 22 March 2022
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Residential Management Group Limited.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleaning (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Lifts (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Poor standard of work |
| Other charges (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Gardening & grounds (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2017-18 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Staffing & concierge (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Utilities (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2014-15 to 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2014-15 and 2019-20) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2015-16) | — | — | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“These are now accepted by the applicant as appropriate in each of the 6 years under consideration.”
“An analysis of the schedules of expenditure provided by the Respondent suggests nothing out of the ordinary, or anything that attracts the eyes of the Tribunal as something unusual, or excessive.”
“the Tribunal does not feel that the Respondent adequately explains the dichotomy between the period of time during which the lift appears to be out of commission and the continual expenditure incurred to obviously very limited effect.”
“If the Tribunal accepts the net cost of relevant items comes to some £5000.00 over a 6-year period, or approximately £64 per flat per year, the issue is not whether such work could be done differently, or at less cost but is such a charge reasonable? There is nothing to suggest it is not.”
“Similar points are made here as are made in relation to the preceding item and the Tribunal again draws the same conclusions. The average cost per flat is about £24.00.”
“The task the Tribunal is set is to consider that a cost is reasonable, not to venture so far as to suggest a different cost may be more reasonable.”
“The Tribunal is nevertheless drawn to the conclusion that the Respondent has no doubt contributed to the length and complexity of this matter by failing to appreciate the rigour that the Applicant would apply to the examination of the documents it provided. It is distinctly possible that these proceedings could have been shortened, if not avoided, had that appreciation been realised.”
“the Tribunal does not feel that the Respondent adequately explains the dichotomy between the period of time during which the lift appears to be out of commission and the continual expenditure incurred to obviously very limited effect.”
“It is important to note how, for someone inexperienced in examining subsequent accounts, this may create confusion and unnecessary work.”
“The Tribunal does note however that even this task appears to have been achieved only with some difficulty on occasions and as Mr Roscoe rightly points out, not in accordance with the RICS guidance on accounting for service charges.”
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.