MAN/OOCH/LSC/2023/0031 — service charge decision
In MAN/OOCH/LSC/2023/0031, decided 19 October 2024, the First-tier Tribunal considered 5 disputed service charge items at Apartments 2, 9, 16, 29 & 35 Ochre Mews, Raven Road, Gateshead and found largely for the landlord: 0 items were reduced or disallowed. Full decision on GOV.UK below.
Property: Apartments 2, 9, 16, 29 & 35 Ochre Mews, Raven Road, Gateshead
Decision date: 19 October 2024
Full decision: Read on GOV.UK
Managing agent named in the decision: Hunters Residential Block Management.
What was challenged and what the tribunal decided
| Item | Demanded | Allowed | Outcome | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other charges (2023) | £1,317.27 | £1,317.27 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £1,940.50 | £1,940.50 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £1,345.60 | £1,345.60 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £1,005.66 | £1,005.66 | Allowed in full | — |
| Other charges (2023) | £1,246.45 | £1,246.45 | Allowed in full | — |
Section 20C order: refused.
Key passages (verbatim)
“the Tribunal found the apportionment and allocation of the 2023 service charges to be contractually legitimate, objectively reasonable, fair, and payable.”
“the Tribunal found the apportionment and allocation of the 2023 service charges to be contractually legitimate, objectively reasonable, fair, and payable.”
“the Tribunal found the apportionment and allocation of the 2023 service charges to be contractually legitimate, objectively reasonable, fair, and payable.”
“the Tribunal found the apportionment and allocation of the 2023 service charges to be contractually legitimate, objectively reasonable, fair, and payable.”
“the Tribunal found the apportionment and allocation of the 2023 service charges to be contractually legitimate, objectively reasonable, fair, and payable.”
“it became apparent that the Tribunal members had not, at that point in time, seen Hunters' final bundle. It became clear that whilst it had been sent to the tribunal office at the same time as being sent to, and safely received by, Mr Mclaughlin, all the documents had not been properly uploaded to the members' case files. The Judge apologised for the administrative error and confirmed that the decision on the applications would only be made after the members' receipt and proper consideration of all the papers.”
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.