MAN/36UD/LSC/2025/0648-AND-0649 — service charge decision
In MAN/36UD/LSC/2025/0648-AND-0649, decided 13 November 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 7 disputed service charge items at Flats 1 and 2, 117 East Parade, Harrogate and reached a mixed result: 3 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Flats 1 and 2, 117 East Parade, Harrogate
Decision date: 13 November 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mr. Raymond Buckley (self-managed).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2024) | — | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease, Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £259 | £259 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2023) | £260 | £260 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2024) | £260 | £260 | Allowed in full | — |
| Management fees (2022-2024) | — | £100 | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Standard not reasonable (s19(1)(b)) |
| Major works (2020-2022) | — | £0 | Withdrawn | No Section 20 consultation |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | £800 | — | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal determines that no charges are recoverable by the Applicant against either Respondent for legal costs.”
“the Tribunal determines that the service charges sought by the Applicant for the insurance for the years 2022 2023 and 2024 was reasonable in relation to Flat 1 and Flat 2.”
“the Tribunal determines that the service charges sought by the Applicant for the insurance for the years 2022 2023 and 2024 was reasonable in relation to Flat 1 and Flat 2.”
“The insurance sought for the year 2024 was £260”
“we determine £100 per flat as being a reasonable charge for managing the property over the period to which the Application refers given all that the Applicant has done is to arrange insurance, and send out demands for payments that for the most part he is not entitled to.”
“The £5000 for the roof having been paid back to the First Respondent, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he was no longer seeking any monies for roofing costs, he was purely seeking legal fees.”
“Instead of sending out as the lease requires, budgets, demands and certified accounts, he sends out an unprofessional hand written note. He fails to respond to enquiries, even when put by solicitors. He tries to recover costs relating to matters other than service charges.”
“None of these are justifiable and made any sense to the Tribunal whatsoever. It was clear from his submitted evidence and his oral submissions that the Applicant sees himself as a victim of the legal system, when in actual fact he seems to have a deep misunderstanding of his situation, and of the rights and responsibilities of both parties under a lease.”
“His management simply makes matters worse for the leaseholders. No works are carried out and he then subjects them to lengthy proceedings which had no reasonable prospect of success.”
“The Applicant has spent his time and energy chasing the Respondents for monies he has no right to recover. He does not do what he is supposed to do, creating problems for his leaseholders, whilst somehow repeatedly referring to himself as a victim of the legal system.”
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.