Five Years of Noble Court’s Finances — and What I Would Change
Before deciding what Noble Court’s service charge should be, we should understand what has actually happened to our money.
The ordinary service charge has remained at £28,800 per year — £60 per flat per month across 40 flats — throughout the five-year period.
The broad picture is:
| Year | Ordinary service-charge income | Expenditure | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | £28,800 | £27,109 | ~£1,693 surplus |
| 2022 | £28,800 | £27,836 | ~£999 surplus |
| 2023 | £28,800 | £26,988 | ~£2,101 surplus |
| 2024 | £28,800 | £31,092 | ~£1,938 deficit* |
| 2025 | £28,800 | £35,200** | ~£6,400 underlying deficit* |
* The accounts also include interest, so the reported accounting surplus/deficit is not simply service charges less expenditure.
** For this comparison I have removed the exceptional £30,444 Section 20 redecoration expenditure from 2025. The published 2025 accounts show total expenditure of £65,643.64 and a reported deficit of £14,153.96.
What the five years tell us
For three years — 2021, 2022 and 2023 — the £60 monthly charge broadly covered Noble Court’s expenditure.
That changed in 2024.
And in 2025, even after removing the Section 20 redecoration project completely, ordinary expenditure had risen to approximately £35,200.
There is, however, an important qualification.
General repairs jumped from £3,471.60 in 2024 to £8,775.89 in 2025.
We know that 2025 included a couple of substantial repairs, so it would be equally misleading to assume that £8,776 will automatically be spent every year.
If we reduce that figure by half for budgeting purposes, estimated recurring expenditure becomes approximately:
£30,812 per year.
That gives us a much more useful starting point for deciding what Noble Court actually needs.
Management costs have steadily increased
One particularly clear five-year trend is the management fee:
| Year | Management fee |
|---|---|
| 2021 | £10,192.32 |
| 2022 | £10,396.16 |
| 2023 | £10,708.08 |
| 2024 | £11,029.32 |
| 2025 | £11,360.16 |
The 2025 figure is confirmed in the latest accounts.
That represents an increase of approximately £1,168, or 11.5%, over five years.
There is nothing inherently wrong with management fees increasing. Costs increase.
But members should be able to ask a very simple question:
Are we receiving a level of service that represents good value for the money being paid?
That is exactly the sort of question I believe directors should be asking.
Repairs tell a different story
General repairs have been:
2021 — £2,504.50
2022 — £4,091.48
2023 — £3,604.60
2024 — £3,471.60
2025 — £8,775.89
The 2025 figure therefore stands out dramatically from the preceding four years.
That is why I would not simply take the £35,200 underlying expenditure from 2025 and declare that to be Noble Court’s new annual budget.
Proper budgeting requires us to understand why expenditure changed.
So what should the service charge be?
The answer should not begin with £60, £65, £70 or any other convenient number.
It should begin with a budget.
Using the information currently available, and allowing approximately £4,388 for routine repairs rather than repeating the exceptional £8,776 spent in 2025, our working annual expenditure estimate becomes approximately £30,812.
For 40 flats:
| Monthly charge | Annual income | Approx. margin over £30,812 |
|---|---|---|
| £60 | £28,800 | £2,012 deficit |
| £65 | £31,200 | £388 surplus |
| £67.50 | £32,400 | £1,588 surplus |
| £70 | £33,600 | £2,788 surplus |
| £75 | £36,000 | £5,188 surplus |
This illustrates why I would not advocate simply keeping the charge as low as possible.
At £65, there is virtually no room for the unexpected.
One broken drain, electrical problem, roof repair or other unforeseen expense could immediately put the annual budget back into deficit.
Something around £70, subject to a proper detailed budget and the provisions of the lease, illustrates a different approach: fund expected expenditure while providing a modest contingency against the unexpected.
My policy: Budget first. Service charge second.
If elected as a director, I will push for the annual service charge to be calculated from a proper annual budget, not simply inherited from the previous year.
That budget should show members:
What we expect to spend. What we actually spent last year. Why anything significant has changed. What provision is being made for repairs. What contingency is being allowed. And what, if anything, is being placed into permitted reserves.
Members should then be able to see exactly how the monthly service charge has been calculated.
If £60 is sufficient, charge £60.
If £65 is sufficient, charge £65.
If the evidence says £70 is necessary, explain why £70 is necessary.
What I do not support is choosing a convenient number and then hoping expenditure fits inside it.
Learn from five years, not one
The five-year accounts tell quite an interesting story.
Noble Court managed within approximately £27,000–£28,000 during 2021–2023. Costs subsequently increased. Management fees have risen steadily. Some categories fluctuate substantially from year to year. And 2025 contained unusually high repair expenditure as well as the completely separate Section 20 redecoration project.
That means neither extreme is sensible.
We shouldn’t assume 2021 costs will somehow return, but neither should we assume every exceptional 2025 expense will happen again every year.
We should budget using evidence.
If I Become a Director
My financial priorities will therefore be:
A proper annual budget. Every significant expenditure category should have an identifiable allowance.
A rolling maintenance programme. We should know what is likely to require attention before it becomes an emergency.
A sensible repair contingency. Unexpected expenditure is inevitable in a residential development.
Proper scrutiny of management costs. Increasing fees should be accompanied by an appropriate standard of service.
Budget-versus-actual reporting. Members should be able to see where expenditure exceeded or fell below expectations.
Long-term planning. Where the lease permits reserves to be collected, future major expenditure should be anticipated rather than automatically becoming tomorrow’s unexpected bill.
Clear explanations. If expenditure suddenly doubles in a category, members shouldn’t have to play detective to discover why.
The principle behind all of this is remarkably simple:
I don’t want the cheapest possible service charge.
I don’t want the highest possible service charge either.
I want the right service charge — properly calculated, properly explained and sufficient to look after Noble Court.
That is the approach to financial management I would bring to the board.
add in a little bit of the no information from current directors
Yes. I’d add it carefully because it strengthens the piece without turning it into a personal attack. The theme should be “the problem isn’t merely the figures; it’s that members aren’t routinely being given the information needed to understand them.”
I would insert this section immediately before “My policy: Budget first. Service charge second.”
The Missing Ingredient: Information
There is another problem which cannot be found simply by reading a column of figures.
Communication.
Members should not have to wait for the annual accounts, examine them themselves and then try to work backwards to discover what happened during the year.
If general repairs rise substantially, tell us what was repaired.
If electricity costs double, explain why.
If major work is being considered, tell members what is proposed.
If an estate inspection identifies problems, tell us what has been identified and what is going to be done about it.
If work is postponed, tell us why.
The 2025 accounts provide a good example. General repairs increased from £3,471.60 to £8,775.89, electricity increased from £1,422.34 to £2,916.94, and window cleaning increased from £1,860 to £2,760.
There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for every one of those figures.
But members should not have to guess what those explanations are.
Directors should communicate
One of the changes I would like to see at Noble Court is a much more open flow of information between the directors, the managing agent and the members.
At present, there is very little routine communication from the directors about the financial and operational management of the estate. That makes it unnecessarily difficult for members to understand what is happening, what is planned and why money is being spent.
This isn’t about producing glossy newsletters every fortnight or bombarding everybody with emails.
It could be remarkably simple.
A short update every few months could tell members:
what has been completed; what remains outstanding; what significant expenditure has occurred; what work is coming next; and whether anything important requires members’ attention.
The existing notice boards could also be used properly, alongside email communication for those who want it.
Transparency shouldn’t require detective work
There is an important distinction between information being technically available somewhere and members actually being kept informed.
Good management should make important information easy to find and easy to understand.
A leaseholder shouldn’t need to scrutinise annual accounts to discover that expenditure in a particular category has doubled.
They shouldn’t need to repeatedly ask whether a reported maintenance problem has been dealt with.
And they shouldn’t have to rely upon rumours between neighbours to discover what the RMC is considering.
My approach would be different:
If there is something significant that members ought reasonably to know about, tell them.
That doesn’t require expensive technology, consultants or another management contract.
It requires a willingness to communicate.
My policy: Budget first. Service charge second.
If elected as a director, I will push for the annual service charge to be calculated from a proper annual budget, rather than simply inherited from the previous year.
And importantly, I want that budget explained to members.
Members should be able to see:
What we expect to spend. What we spent last year. Why significant costs have changed. What maintenance is planned. What provision is being made for routine repairs. What contingency is being allowed. And what, if anything, is being placed into permitted reserves.
Then, during the year, we should report back.
Not endlessly. Not bureaucratically.
Just enough that the people paying the bills have a reasonable idea of what their company is doing with their money.
That leads very naturally into the strongest line in your existing article:
I don’t want the cheapest possible service charge.
I don’t want the highest possible service charge either.
I want the right service charge — properly calculated, properly explained and sufficient to look after Noble Court.
And I’d add one final sentence:
Because transparency isn’t simply publishing the accounts once a year. It is keeping members informed while the decisions that create those accounts are actually being made.