MAN/36UH/LSC/2024/0233 — service charge decision
In MAN/36UH/LSC/2024/0233, decided 18 August 2025, the First-tier Tribunal considered 8 disputed service charge items at Dacre, Stutton, Tadcaster and reached a mixed result: 2 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Dacre, Stutton, Tadcaster
Decision date: 18 August 2025
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Venture Block Management / Block Buddy.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management fees (2022-2023) | £3,600 | £3,600 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | £2,883.45 | £2,883.45 | Allowed in full | — |
| Buildings insurance (2022-2023) | £339.76 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Not payable under the lease |
| Other charges (2022) | £312 | £0 | Disallowed entirely | Landlord could not evidence the cost |
| Legal & professional costs (2022-2023) | £390 | £390 | Allowed in full | — |
| Repairs & maintenance (2022-2023) | £479 | £674.50 | Allowed in full | Costs unreasonably incurred (s19(1)(a)) |
| Other charges (2022-2023) | £1,440 | £1,890 | Allowed in full | — |
| Reserve fund contributions (2022-2023) | £750 | £750 | Allowed in full | — |
Key passages (verbatim)
“The Tribunal finds that an annual fee of £2880 including VAT for the managing agent is reasonable and in line with the 2022/2023 market for a small estate.”
“The Tribunal finds that the premiums appear reasonable and that Ms Caden has not produced any evidence to the contrary.”
“Following the decision in Wilson v Lesley Place (RTM) Co Ltd [2010] UKUT 342 (LC)… the Tribunal is bound to find that such insurance premiums are not service charge items and should be removed from the account.”
“The Tribunal finds that Ms Caden is not required to contribute to this cost as she has not seen the Fire Risk Assessment, which was not produced to the Tribunal either.”
“The Tribunal finds that the accountancy fees are reasonable and the service charge accounts were not served out of time.”
“The Tribunal also found that the invoices for minor roof and gutter repairs (£350 and £120) in 2022 were reasonable and payable. In 2023 Guiry Contractors' invoice for cleaning gutters at a cost of £430 included 'for gutters next doors garage - £80', and the recoverable cost is therefore limited to £350.”
“The Tribunal finds the Applicant's failure to respond helpfully to the Respondent's concerns about the use of her money to be inexplicable and regrettable.”
“It is highly regrettable that no copy of the policy has been provided to Ms Caden to alleviate her concerns. The Applicant is in breach of clause 5.2 of Ms Caden's lease insofar as it has failed to give her particulars of the insurance policy, the appropriate method of doing this being to provide her with a copy of the document.”
“The tone of the Applicant's statements in response to Ms Caden's queries and concerns is disappointingly patronising and dismissive. For example, the Applicant says "The Respondent has again demonstrated her misunderstanding…" and "The Respondent also appears to have misunderstood the services and costs which can be recovered…". Such comments are particularly inappropriate (1) where the Applicant has not only failed to apportion the service charges in accordance with Ms Caden's lease but also sought to justify that apportionment before the Tribunal and (2) where the invoices supplied during the course of these proceedings and relied upon by the Applicant do not add up to the service charges contended for.”
“it appears to the Tribunal that the discrepancy identified by Ms Caden between the 2021 service charge demand and invoices is partly accounted for by a collection of £3200 towards the reserve fund in 2021, for which no invoice would be available.”
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.