MAN/36UH/LSC/2023/0090 — service charge decision
In MAN/36UH/LSC/2023/0090, decided 26 September 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 19 disputed service charge items at Renshaw, Cocksford, Stutton, Tadcaster and reached a mixed result: 14 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Renshaw, Cocksford, Stutton, Tadcaster
Decision date: 26 September 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Mr Williams (unnamed firm).
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buildings insurance (2018) | £2,775.36 | £1,705.12 | Reduced | Insurance not market tested, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Buildings insurance (2019) | £1,857.59 | £1,857.59 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £2,095.51 | £2,095.51 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2021) | £289.50 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Buildings insurance (2022) | £224.34 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Legal & professional costs (2018) | £1,500 | £1,500 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2018) | £300 | £300 | Allowed in full | — |
| Major works (2018) | £1,500 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Section 20B 18-month time limit |
| Major works (2020) | £8,184 | £7,365.60 | Reduced | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)), Other grounds |
| Repairs & maintenance (2020) | £318 | £198.75 | Reduced | Apportionment error |
| Reserve fund contributions (2020) | — | — | Reduced | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Legal & professional costs (2021) | £396 | £396 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2020) | £210 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Other charges (2022) | £312 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Cleaning (2021) | £450 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost, Other grounds |
| Management fees (2018) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2019) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020-21) | — | — | Reduced | Fee excessive for service delivered, Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Management fees (2020-21) | £144 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Duplication of charges, Not payable under the lease |
Section 20C order: granted.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal accepts that the sum of £1,705.12 is a reasonable amount for the year 2018.”
“the insurance premium for 2019 is allowed at £1,857.59, which is the sum charged.”
“the Tribunal is not able to conclude that the premium for 2022 is unreasonable.”
“the sums incurred in respect of D&O insurance are not recoverable through the service charges.”
“the sums incurred in respect of D&O insurance are not recoverable through the service charges.”
“the cost of the report and the platform are both reasonable and payable.”
“It is disappointing that the Directors of the Respondent have chosen not to attend the hearing. They provide no reason for their non-attendance. Whilst they mention that their managing agent, Mr Williams is not available, "for medical reasons", they have not provided any evidence of this nor have they either attended themselves or instructed another representative to be present.”
“in light of the decision that was made by this Tribunal under case at number MAN/36 UH/LSC/2018/0030 (the "2019 Decision"), in which various findings were made against the Respondent, the Tribunal considers this comment from the Respondent to be inappropriate. The Applicants are entitled for clarity.”
“The explanation that the money was used to pay the balance due from another leaseholder is neither appropriate nor credible.”
“It is understood that the Respondent has not cooperated with the Applicants in relation to compiling the Bundle and, as a result, the Applicants considered it prudent to include all documentation that had been provided.”
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.