First-tier Property Chamber Rules on Service Charge Liability Under Landlord and Tenant Act

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AS/LSC/2020/0089 HMCTS code (paper, video, audio) : V: CVPREMOTE Property : [NAME], Harefield [POSTCODE] Applicants : [redacted] [NAME] (2) [NAME] (3) Representative : [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] :

[NAME] of [NAME] of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Tribunal Judge Dutton Venue : Remote Video hearing on 8 and 9 April 2021 Date of decision : 20 April 2021

DECISION

5 Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote video hearing which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was V: CVPREMOTE. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents that we were was referred to are in a paper bundle comprising 12 section prepared by the Applicants and a digital bundle of some 195 pages, the contents of which we have noted. The orders made are as described below. Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision. (2) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 so that none of the landlord’s costs of the tribunal proceedings may be passed to the lessees through any service charge. (3) The tribunal determines that the Respondent shall pay the Applicant [NAME] £300 within 28 days of this Decision, in respect of the reimbursement of the tribunal fees paid by the Applicants in this case. The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to the amount of service charges payable by the Applicants in respect of the service charge years 2014 to 2019. The hearing 2. The Applicants were represented by [NAME] and the Respondent was represented by [NAME]. The background 3. The property, which is the subject of this application, is a converted period building, [NAME] (the [NAME]) containing 9 leasehold apartments, in which the Applicants each have leasehold interests. In addition, within the Estate grounds there are 9 freehold properties, which share certain services with the [NAME] and beyond the Estate a further 8 freehold properties that share sewerage facilities and road access.

4. In the present Covid pandemic an inspection was not undertaken

5 5. The Applicants hold long leases of their apartments, which require the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge. The specific provisions of the lease will be referred to below, where appropriate.

6. At the same time as this application was in process the Applicants had applied for a variation of their respective leases under claim LON/00AS/LVL/2020/0001, which has been compromised.

Accordingly, this decision relates to the service charge issues under s27A of the Act alone.

7. It should be noted for the sake of completeness that within the lease variation action [NAME] requested and was allowed observer status.

8. We also record that at the start of the hearing [NAME] attended and told us that her father’s interest in [NAME] had been transferred to her in 2019. 9. [NAME] had prepared detailed documentation, including a [NAME] Schedule, and a statement of case, which mirrored the [NAME] Schedule, but with some narrative. In addition, we were supplied with a number of “Support Attachments”: Accounts for the years in dispute, the lease to his apartment, which is common to all, and witness statements of [NAME] and [NAME] and [NAME], the latter being a couple who had been involved in earlier proceedings in the tribunal relating to their freehold property [NAME].

10. For the [COMPANY], [NAME] acting on its behalf had filed, in digital format, a bundle responding to the allegations made and providing some invoices.

11. Although not a party to these proceedings [NAME] had been in regular contact with the tribunal. This contact continued to the second day of the hearing when he sent in an email with a detailed response to some of the evidence we had received the day before. The message included photographs of a bin store and copy invoices. With respect to him and, whilst we accept this contact was what he considered to be of assistance to the tribunal, he has no status and his evidence will have to be viewed in that light. The same may be said of the involvement of [NAME], who were the managing agents of the development, it would seem from 2014 to 2019. Although they were allowed to play some part in the hearing on the first day no witness statement had been produced and accordingly the weight we can give to the comments they made will have to be considered in that light. 12. [NAME] took us through his statement of case on an item by item basis and [NAME] responded in the same manner. There were a number

5 of issues which were compromised, [NAME] or [NAME] during the first day of the hearing.

13. For the second day of the hearing [NAME] had, overnight, produced an amended Statement showing the items agreed on the first day. We confirmed with [NAME] that the Statement accurately reflected the matters resolved the day before. In fact, there were further concessions on both sides on the second day and these are reflected in the attached updated [NAME] Schedule which reflects a reviewed statement of case which was agreed by [NAME].

14. This decision addresses only those matters that remained in dispute at the conclusion of the hearing. For the overall position reference should be had to the [NAME] Schedule annexed hereto.

15. We are grateful to the parties for the attitude shown, which was both helpful and often conciliatory. We hope this bodes well for the future. Accounting 16. [NAME] confirmed that he was content with the definition of Statutory Charges to include the accountancy charges as well as management costs. They are shown under this heading in the accounts from 2017 onwards.

17. He did not understand what the certification fee was. The accounts refer to ‘Service Charge Accountant’ and there appears to be an accountancy charge both for the [NAME] and the Estate, which varies slightly each year but averages at around £565 for the Grounds/Estate accounts and around £508 for the [NAME].

18. The lease at the Fifth Schedule paragraph (6) provides for the [NAME] to pay a fair proportion of the costs of maintaining and repairing various common facilities and structures and includes the phrase ‘Statutory Charges’, which does not appear to be further defined. It is accepted that the Applicants pay equal shares of the service charge costs and this, we were told, included apartment 1, the owner of which did not participate in these proceedings.

19. Paragraph 2.4 of the Eight Schedule to the lease says this: “[NAME] shall as soon as reasonable (sic) possible after the end of each accounting period (and in any event within 3 months) provide a detailed account showing expenditure incurred by [NAME] in providing the Services during the preceding accounting period and of the [NAME]’s proportion payable by the [NAME] for such period to be audited by [NAME]’s accountant which shall except in the case of manifest error be conclusive evidence for all matters referred to in the said account”

5 20. It was [NAME]’s case that there was no audit and that there were “manifest errors”. These errors were, for example, incorrect recording of management fees, wrong allocation of electricity costs and insurance premiums. It was also said that the accounts were frequently produced outside the period provided for in the lease.

21. For the Respondent [NAME] said he did not consider that it was necessary to carry out a full-blown audit. The accounts were prepared by a qualified accountant. 22. [NAME] commented that they were using a mix of [NAME] accounting and Excel spread sheets and that it was possible that another accounting package would have picked up any errors. The tribunal’s decision 23. The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of the accounting charges is £2,880 in respect of the Estate (Grounds) and £2,710 in respect of the accounts for the [NAME], made up as follows. Accounts Certification Fee Schedule 1 - Grounds Payments: 2014/15 £510 2015/16 £510 2016/17 £600 2017/18 £600 2018/19 £600 2018/19 £570

Total £2,880 Accounts Certification Fee Schedule 2 - [NAME]: 2014/15 £340 2015/16 £340 2016/17 £600 2017/18 £600 2018/19 £600 2018/19 £570 Total £2,710

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 24. We agree with [NAME] that the steps undertaken by the accountant meet the requirements of the lease. An Audit can be defined as the

5 inspection of the accounts of a business and the production of a report by an outside person. If there are errors it would seem they were down to wrong information being given, which might have been prevented if the managing agents had better accounting facilities. We do not consider that the accountant has so failed that the fees charged are irrecoverable. Further, no alternative fee is suggested, and our knowledge and experience would suggest that the average fee charged is reasonable. [NAME] fee 25. We were told that these represented disbursements incurred by the managing agents [NAME] ([NAME]). The Applicants challenged these costs as being unjustifiable and anyway should have been within the management fee.

26. These charges are as follows: 2015/16 £181.00 2016/17 £176.00 2017/18 £194.00 2018/19 £109.00

[NAME] £669.00

The tribunal’s decision 27. The tribunal determines that the amount of £669 is not payable. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 28. There is no management agreement as such, just the letter dated 20 October 2014. This letter, however, contains no terms. Apart from indicating the appointment lasts for a period of 6 months there are no other terms as to payment or other expenses. We shall have to address the question of the managing agent’s annual fees in due course. The sums claimed in respect of the [NAME] indicate an average charge of around £450. We find that the average charge for this item is under £20 per lease per year for the four years charged and should have been part of the annual charge, in the absence of any documentation to the contrary. Interest and charges for credit on Insurance premium 27. This, we were told, was a credit arrangement [NAME] had put in place to cover the costs of the annual premium. This was because there were insufficient funds in the service charge account at the time the premium was payable, which would seem to be August each year. The lease provides a paragraph 2.2 of the Eighth Schedule that there should be equal payments in advance against the service charge costs on 1 April

5 and 1 October in each year. There appears to be a typographical error in that in the third line from the end of that clause; the second “Lessor” should be [NAME].

28. For the Applicants [NAME] asserted that the leaseholders at the [NAME] paid their service charges on time and it was as a result of the freehold owners not paying their contributions that there were potentially insufficient funds. This was, he said, because the freeholders were deeply unhappy with the managing agents, as evidenced by the statements of [NAME] and [NAME] and [NAME].

29. These charges are as follows:

2016/17 [NAME] £496.92 2017/18 [NAME] £490.77 2018/19 [NAME] £582.47 [NAME] £1,570.16

The tribunal’s decision

30. The tribunal disallows the sum of £1,570.16 in respect of the credit arrangements for the insurance premiums for the years 2016 to 2019. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 31. The sums claimed total £1,570.16 and it is accepted by the Respondents that a credit arrangement was in place for the years 2016 – 2019. We could understand the need for such an arrangement in the earlier years. However, from 2016 onwards the Respondent should have been fully aware of the insurance provisions and budgeted accordingly. It may be that there was a shortfall as a result of contributions from others, but steps should have been taken to recover those funds. It is not reasonable to penalise the Applicants for this problem. [NAME] contract 32. Our records of the hearing show that the Respondent [NAME] half the sum claimed in 2016-17, which was in total £1860, and [NAME] on the sum of £702 for the following year. This left the balance in dispute of £930, which [NAME] says remains and upon which we should make a decision.

33. It was said by [NAME] that the plant was not working during this period. The original statement complained that the system was essentially not fit for purpose. It does, however, indicate that some works were undertaken by reference to solenoids sticking and cleaning and unnecessary watering.

34. The [NAME] charges are as follows:

5

Year 2016/17 £1,860

Year 2017/18 £702 The tribunal’s decision 35. There have been substantial concessions made by the Respondent in respect of this particular overhead. The balance remaining of £930, seems a reasonable amount to pay in respect of this head and we therefore allow that amount. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision 36. It is with a certain element of pragmatism that we allow this sum. There was little evidence given to us. It does seem clear that the system is not functioning as well as it should. No contract was produced but it would appear that the system was up and running by November 2019. [NAME] indicated that the system was not working in 2016/17, there is insufficient evidence to be certain as to the periods it was in operation. It is, we find, reasonable to allow the balancing sum of £930. [NAME]

37. The sum outstanding is £,2860 being the sum claimed for the year 2017/18. Full details of the repairs were requested both in the original statement and at the hearing, [NAME] indicated that, if supporting papers could be produced, the Applicants may abandon this complaint. We are not aware that any such documentation was produced.

38. We were told that the problem with this element was that a compressor had failed and was not replaced. The compressor, we were told, assisted in the breakdown of the slurry. It seems that [NAME] and [NAME] had met an engineer who had explained that the problem related to the faulty/missing compressor, which it seems remained in this condition for some time.

39. The [NAME] charge is as follows: Year 2017/18 £2,860

The tribunal’s decision 40. We disallow the sum of £2,860 in respect of the year 2017/2018 Reasons for the tribunal decision 41 An offer was made by [NAME] to review the position on production of supporting paperwork, which does not appear to have been supplied. We accept [NAME]’s evidence concerning the missing/faulty

5 compressor and that this was left unattended for some time. In those circumstances, given that the Applicants withdrew their complaint about the earlier year, it is, we find, reasonable to disallow this sum as there is no evidence as to what works were undertaken. Sewers De-[NAME]

42. The year in dispute is 2016/17. This is the year that the Applicants withdrew their challenge in respect of the [NAME], but such withdrawal was on the basis that it reflected a certain wish to reach a compromise on matters.

43. The charges for this item of work averaged, over the three years not [NAME], £1743. The claim for the year 2061/17 is £6319. The Applicants accept some de-sludging and put forward a figure of £2,250, leaving £3,799 still in dispute.

44. The [NAME] charge is Year 2016/17 £6,319 of which the Applicant [NAME] £3,799 and withdrew their challenge to £2,520, which they accepted should be payable.

The tribunal’s decision 45. The sum of only £2,250 is allowed and payable. The balance of £3,799 is disallowed.

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

46. It is clear from the Applicants’ statement of case that there have been annual charges for de-sludging and that these have been paid. The year in dispute shows nearly a four-fold increase in the average charge for the other years. We are left to conclude, in the absence of any evidence from the Respondent, that this extra cost relates to the non-functioning plant. It appears to be accepted that the compressor was out of action for some time and we can accept that this would have resulted in additional payments. However, it is our finding that these additional payments were as a result of the failure of the Respondent, through its agent, to rectify the problem in a timely manner.

[NAME]

47. We were told that this was a misnomer as there is no sewer pump, and this was [NAME] by [NAME]; in fact the heading should be ‘Sewer Repairs’. A further clarification from [NAME] indicated that this was treatment plant repairs.

5 48. The sum claimed is not insignificant, being £2,664. It is noted that this sits as something of an outlier as the average of the costs before and after is only £348.

49. Details of the charges for this item are as follows:

Year 2015/16 £322 [NAME] 2016/17 £586 [NAME] 2017/18 £2,664 [NAME] 2018/19 £126 [NAME]

The tribunal’s decision

50. We find that the sum claimed is not reasonable and thus not payable. However, we find that there would likely be expenses, given the years before and after. The average claim is £348 and find that is the amount which we will allow for the year 2017/2018.

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

51. The sums sought for the years before and after are considerably less than for the year 2017/18, without explanation. We would have expected there to be some evidence of costs being spent on this head, but none were shown to us.

52. In the light of the lack of supporting evidence, and given that the Applicants have raised a valid complaint without response, we find that the sum of £2,664 should be disallowed but will allow the average of £348.

Management fees for the [NAME] and the Grounds

53. The Applicants state that they were never consulted over the appointment of [NAME] to the role as managing agent. Their appointment appears to be based on a letter dated 20 October 2014 in which they indicate what their tasks will be, and that the appointment is for a period of 6 months. No mention of fees or disbursements is set out in this letter.

54. We did consider whether the Applicant’ complaint about non- consultation was relevant but conclude that the contract, being determinable after 6 months does not, on the face of it, constitute a qualifying long-term agreement, for which consultation would be required.

55. The management came to an end following a resignation letter dated 7 November 2019. It is suggested by [NAME] that the estate is unmanageable, as a result of the faulty freehold provisions and the terms of the leases as well as a lack of communication and understanding of the works undertaken or suspended.

5 56. The charges made for this element are as shown below:

Management Fees Grounds Annual Accounts Payments: Year 2014/15 £6,430.50

Year 2015/16 £6,000 Year 2016/17 £6,000 Year 2017/18 £6,000 Year 2018/19 £6,000

[NAME] £30,430.50

Management [NAME]: Year 2014/15 £4,287 Year 2015/16 £4,000 Year 2016/17 £6,000 £4,000 [NAME] and £2,000 [NAME] 2017/18 £4,000 Year 2018/19 £4,000

[NAME] £22,287

The tribunal’s decision

57. Taking the matter in the round and considering the submissions made we conclude that it would be appropriate to reduce the Management fees for both the [NAME] and the Grounds by 50%. This means that the total sum allowed for the management of the [NAME] is £10,144, taking into account the agreed reduction of £2,000 for the year 2016/17. For the Grounds the total sum allowed is £15,215.

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

58. We are extremely surprised that the Respondent and [NAME] should allow the management of the Estate and the [NAME] to continue for 5 years without a review of the contractual arrangement, which would have revealed the lack of an agreement. In our finding this does go some way to explain the perceived lack of care which has been the cause of concern on the part of the Applicants.

59. In addition, there is evidence that the standard of management was at times lacking. It may be that [NAME] found the scrutiny they were put under difficult to deal with, but to a large extent that seems to be as a result of the failings both in the management of the Estate and the control exerted by the Respondent.

60. It would appear from exhibited correspondence that there was general dissatisfaction with the level of management and it is said that the alleged deterioration in the Estate has impacted on the value of the Applicants’ properties.

5 61. That being said there is no doubt, in our finding, that some management was taking place. The gardening was done, bills were paid and a number of items on the accounts were not the subject of challenge or, if they were, resulted in withdrawal or compromise.

62. Taking these issues into account we find that it would be reasonable to allow 50% of the fee claimed for each year.

Application under s.20C and [NAME] of fees 63. At the end of the hearing, the Applicants made an application for a [NAME] of the fees that they had paid in respect of the application/ hearing1. Having heard the submissions from the parties and taking into account the determinations above, we order the Respondent to [NAME] all the fees paid for this claim in the sum of £300 within 28 days of the date of this decision. We shall address the fees in respect of the claim for a lease variation under reference LON/00AS/LVL/2020/0001, when that is finalised, but our present view is that the Respondent should contribute half the fees, namely £150.

64. In the application form and at the hearing, the Applicants applied for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Although the landlord indicated that no costs would be passed through the service charge, for the avoidance of doubt, we nonetheless determine that it is just and equitable in the circumstances for an order to be made under section 20C of the 1985 Act, so that the Respondent may not pass any of its costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the tribunal through the service charge.

Name: Tribunal Judge Dutton Date: 20 April 2021

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

1 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013

5 The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME] .If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

© [NAME] Schedule For [NAME] Service Charges 2014/15 TRIBUNAL NOTE: THE [NAME] NOT BEEN UPDATED BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION OF [NAME] 1st Nov 2013 24th Oct 2014 1st Feb 2016 [NAME] 68.00 ITEM Charge TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL STATUTORY Accountant Estate 510.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 5.55% 28.31

5.27 N/A [NAME] 510.00 [NAME] 340.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 11.11% 37.77

7.04 N/A [NAME] 340.00 Management Charge in Accounts Estate £6,430.50 430.50 Over invoiced 5.55% 23.89

4.45 N/A [NAME] 215.25 6,000.00 See Category 15.0 Page 37 5.55% 333.00

62.04 N/A [NAME] 3,000.00 [NAME] 287.00 Over invoiced 11.11% 31.89

5.94 N/A [NAME] 143.50 [NAME] £4,287 4,000.00 See Category 15.0 Page 38 11.11% 444.40

82.79 N/A [NAME] 2,000.00 [NAME] 291.97 See Category 3.1 Page 20 11.11% 32.44

6.04 N/A [NAME]/[NAME] 550.00 SEE SPREAD SHEET 43A 11.11% 61.11

11.38 N/A [NAME] Estate 1,267.20 [NAME] For [NAME] 2,899.74 See Category 5.0 Page 22 Applicants Proposal See Summary [NAME] 3,262.21 See Category 5.0 Page 22 Applicants Proposal See Summary [NAME] 1,551.93 [NAME] GROUNDS MAINTENANCE Grounds Maintenance Contract 19,723.60 [NAME] & Repair 1,154.94 [NAME] Security 2,020.90 [NAME] 1,620.00 [NAME] Applicants Proposal Utilities 1,087.40 See Category 5.0 Page 22 SEE SUMMARY TELEPHONE Telephone Estate 967.70 See Category 7.5 Page 24 50% [NAME] £483.85 [NAME] 483.85 [NAME] 483.85 50% bill [NAME] 5.55% 26.85

5.00 N/A [NAME] 548.07 See Category 7.4 Page 24 49,480.86 TOTAL 1,019.65 £ 189.96 £ - £ Notes Respondent provided Insurance Schedules on the 10th March 2021, show an overpayment of the total bill of £291.87 From the Schedules supplied it is confirmed there Policy in place for the Grounds and Estate, the [NAME] paid all the Public Liability, £550 should have been allocated to the Estate. Thus the apartment owners overpaid. Applicants compromise proposal for the electricity was accepted by the Respondent and a lump sum agree £779.89 for [NAME] £779.89 for [NAME] £779.89 for [NAME] we are disputing all the Management Fees, the Managing fee was £6000 for the Estate and £4,000 for the [NAME]. We were over invoiced £430.50 for the Estate £287.00 on the [NAME]

5

TRIBUNAL NOTE: THE [NAME] NOT BEEN UPDATED BY THE TRIBUNAL

DECISION OF [NAME] Schedule for [NAME] Service Charges 2015/16 - Sheet 1 ESTATE [NAME] 1st Feb 2016 [NAME] 59.00 ITEM Charge TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] RESPONDENTS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL STATUTORY Accountant 510.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 5.55% 28.31 28.31 4.58 [NAME] 510.00 [NAME] Management Fee 6,000.00 See Category 15.1 Page 37 5.55% 333.00 333.00 53.83 [NAME] 3,000.00 [NAME]/[NAME] 181.00 See Category 2.4 Page 19 5.55% 10.05 10.05 1.62 [NAME] 0.00 INSURANCE Grounds Public Liability 550.00 [NAME] 5.55% Estate Assets ([NAME] & [NAME]) 825.00 [NAME] 5.55% [NAME] 1,369.00 Applicants Proposal Accepted MAINTENANCE REPAIRS General 2,060.00 [NAME] 1,400.00 [NAME] of a [NAME]-meter 600.00 See Category 8.1 Page 25 5.55% 33.30 33.30 5.38 [NAME] [ADDRESS]/Improvements 1,766.00 [NAME] Grounds Maintenance Contract 19,723.60 [NAME] 5.55% [NAME] 1,141.00 [NAME] 304.00 [NAME] 5.55% [NAME] 600.00 [NAME] 300.00 [NAME] 300.00 5.55% 16.65 16.65 2.69 Respondent Concede £300 of the £600 [NAME] 2,077.00 [NAME] identified SUB-TOTAL 421.30 £ 421.30 £ 68.10 £

5

[NAME] Schedule for [NAME] Service Charges 2015/16 - Sheet 2 [NAME] 1st Feb 2016 ITEM COST TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL STATUTORY Accountant 600.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 11.11% 66.66 66.66 10.78 [NAME] 600 Management Fee 4,000.00 See Category 15.2 Page 38 11.11% 444.40 444.40 71.83 [NAME] 2000 [NAME] 26.50 See Category 3.1 Page 20 11.11% 2.94 2.94 0.48 [NAME] 10,278.00 [NAME] Landlords Electric Meter 2,664.00 Applicants Proposal Accepted SEE SUMMARY MAINTENANCE REPAIRS Internal 1,514.00 [NAME] 8.4 Page 26 [NAME] page 125 Platinum Invoice 50.00 [NAME] cleanng [NAME] 127 240.00 [NAME] cleanng [NAME] 129 240.00 See Category 8.4 Page 26 11.11% 26.66 26.66 4.31 [NAME] 530.00 [NAME] 1,500.00 [NAME] 31st May 2015 720.00 [NAME] 138 invoice dated 31.05.15 Gutter Cleanng 31st Jan 2016 780.00 [NAME] 139 invoice dated 31.05.15 [NAME] - Line rental 45.00 [NAME] Service Contract 467.00 [NAME] Line Rental & Calls 51.00 See Category 13.1 Page 35 12.50% 6.38 6.38 1.03 [NAME] 329.00 [NAME] 102.00 [NAME]-TOTAL 547.04 £ 547.04 £ 88.43 £ [NAME] 1st Feb 2016 59.00 ITEM COST TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL [NAME] 600.00 Applicants Proposal Accepted TOTAL 968.34 £ 968.34 £ 156.53 £

5

TRIBUNAL NOTE: THE [NAME] NOT BEEN UPDATED BY THE TRIBUNAL

DECISION OF [NAME] Schedule for [NAME] Service Charges 2016/17 - Sheet 1 SCHEDULE 1 - GROUNDS MAINTENANCE & [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL Charge STATUTORY Accountant 600.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 5.55% 33.30 33.30 33.30 [NAME] 600 Bank Charges 255.00 [NAME] Legal/Professional Fees 437.00 5.55% 24.25 24.25 24.25 Respondent has [NAME] Management Fee 6,000.00 See Category 15.1 Page 37 5.55% 333.00 333.00 333.00 [NAME] 3,000.00 [NAME]/[NAME] 176.00 See Category 2.4 Page 19 5.55% 9.77 9.77 9.77 [NAME] 0.00 [NAME] 2,277.00 Applicants Proposal Accepted MAINTENANCE REPAIRS General 1,814.00 [NAME] 256.00 [NAME] 150.00 [NAME] [ADDRESS] Contract 19,622.00 [NAME] 564.00 See Category 9.4 Page 31 5.55% 31.30 31.30 31.30 [NAME] B page 151 [NAME] 1,860.00 See Category 9.7 Page 32 5.55% 103.23 103.23 103.23 [NAME] 930.00 SUB-TOTAL 534.85 £ 534.85 £ 534.85 £

5

[NAME] Schedule for [NAME] Service Charges 2016/17 - Sheet 2 SCHEDULE 2 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL Charge STATUTORY Accountant 600.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 5.55% 33.30 33.30 33.30 [NAME] 600.00 Management Fee 4,000.00 See Category 15.1 Page 37 11.11% 444.40 444.40 444.40 [NAME] 2,000.00 Shown as £6,000 in the accounts 2,000.00 Error in the accounts 11.11% 222.20 222.20 222.20 [NAME]/[NAME] 550.00 See Category 3.2 Page 20 11.11% 61.11 61.11 61.11 [NAME] Estate [NAME] 825.00 See Category 3.3 Page 21 11.11% 91.66 91.66 91.66 [NAME] & Charges 582.47 See Category 3.5 Page 21 11.11% 64.71 64.71 64.71 [NAME] 0.00 [NAME] 9,193.00 [NAME] 119.00 [NAME] 240.00 [NAME] Landlords Electric Meter 3,080.00 See Category 5.0 Page 22 Applicants Proposal Accepted MAINTENANCE REPAIRS External 1,627.00 [NAME] B page 130,131 & 132 Pest Control Contract 144.00 [NAME] 798.00 [NAME] & Repairs 477.00 [NAME] - Line rental 231.00 [NAME] Service Contract 490.00 See Category 13.2 Page 36 Telephone Line Rental & Calls 231.00 See Category 13.1 Page 35 11.11% 25.66 25.66 25.66 [NAME] 344.00 See Category 13.3 Page 36 SUB-TOTAL 943.04 £ 943.04 £ 943.04 £

5

[NAME] Schedule for [NAME] Service Charges 2016/17 - Sheet 3 SCHEDULE 3 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL [NAME] Applicants Proposal Accepted SUB-TOTAL - £ SCHEDULE 4 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL [NAME] 1,014.00 [NAME] De-[NAME] £6,319 3,799.00 See Category 14.2 Page 36 3.846% 146.11 146.11 146.11 0 2,520.00 [NAME] would be payable 2520 6,319.00 [NAME] 586.00 [NAME] £2,976 1,576.00 See Category 14.4 Page 37 3.846% 60.61 60.61 60.61 [NAME] on the 2nd March & 05.04.21 1,400.00 [NAME] 2,976.00 SUB-TOTAL 206.72 £ 206.72 £ 206.72 £ TOTAL 1,684.62 £ 1,684.62 £ 1,684.62 £ For the De-[NAME] we are disputing the variance in the Accounts £6,319 and the Budget £2,520 giving the [NAME] amount of £3,799 The extra [NAME] costs were a direct result of failure of the Respondent and its agents to adequately investigate and ensure the correct running of the plant. Basis sampling costs of £1,398 in fiscal year 2018/19 we have assumed a reasonable cost for sampling is £1,400 . We are claiming the difference of £2,976 less £1,400 giving a [NAME] amount of £1,576. There was no proportion of the insurance allocated to the Estate Assets or Public Liability. The [NAME] paid all the Insurance.

5

TRIBUNAL NOTE: THE [NAME] NOT BEEN UPDATED BY THE TRIBUNAL

DECISION OF SUMS ALLOWED Schedule Claim for [NAME] of Service Charges 2017/18 - Sheet 1 SCHEDULE 1 - GROUNDS MAINTENANCE & [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL Charge STATUTORY Accountant Certification Fee 600.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 5.55% 33.30 33.30 33.30 [NAME] 600 Bank Charges 224.00 [NAME] Management Fee 6,000.00 See Category 15.1 Page 37 5.55% 333.00 333.00 333.00 [NAME] 3,000.00 [NAME]/[NAME] 194.00 See Category 2.4 Page 19 5.55% 10.77 10.77 10.77 [NAME] 0.00 Late Payment Fee 45.00 [NAME] 209.00 [NAME] to receiving copies of all the reports REPORTS STILL NOT PROVIDED Electrical Test 432.00 [NAME] H&S Remedial Works 455.00 See Category 4.0 Page 22 5.55% 25.25 25.25 25.25 [NAME] [ADDRESS] Contract 19,284.00 [NAME] 5.55% Garden Expenditure 1,000.00 [NAME] 1,015.00 [NAME]'s £2000 should be in one category [NAME] 702.00 [NAME] & Inspection 2,268.00 See Category 9.5 Page 31 5.55% 125.87 125.87 125.87 [NAME] Contract 66.00 [NAME] 144.00 [NAME] Respondent advised [NAME] for fire alarm SUB-TOTAL 528.19 £ 528.19 £ 528.19 £

5

Schedule Claim for [NAME] of Service Charges 2017/18 - Sheet 2 SCHEDULE 2 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL STATUTORY Accountant 600.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 11.11% 66.66 66.66 66.66 [NAME] 600.00 Management Fee 4,000.00 See Category 15.1 Page 37 11.11% 444.40 444.40 444.40 [NAME] 2,000.00 INSURANCE Buildings/[NAME] 550.00 See Category 3.1 Page 20 11.11% 61.11 61.11 61.11 [NAME] Estate [NAME] 825.00 See Category 3.1 Page 20 11.11% 91.66 91.66 91.66 [NAME] & Charges 490.77 See Category 3.1 Page 20 11.11% 54.52 54.52 54.52 [NAME] 0.00 [NAME] 12,023.00 [NAME] 209.00 [NAME] to receiving copies of all the reports Electrical Test 576.00 [NAME] H&S Remedial Works 651.00 See Category 4.0 Page 22 12.50% 81.38 81.38 81.38 [NAME] Landlords Electric Meter K11C00183 5,673.00 See Category 5.0 Page 22 Applicants Proposal Accepted MAINTENANCE REPAIRS Internal 1,713.00 See Category 8.3 Page 26 12.50% [NAME] 153.00 Incorrect Handle Fitted Bundle B 133 7.00% 3.57 3.57 3.57 [NAME] We paid 7% over charge 1,428.00 This is an Estate Cost 7.00% 33.32 33.32 33.32 [NAME] B 134 We paid 7% over charge 132.00 This is an Estate Cost 7.00% 3.08 3.08 3.08 [NAME] B 135 [NAME] 820.00 [NAME] 798.00 [NAME] & Repairs 486.00 [NAME] - Line rental [PHONE] 316.00 [NAME] 240.00 [NAME] 11.11% 26.66 26.66 26.66 [NAME] Service Contract 515.00 [NAME] Line Rental & Calls [PHONE] 419.00 [NAME] 12.50% 52.38 52.38 52.38 [NAME] 363.00 [NAME]-TOTAL 918.73 £ 918.73 £ 918.73 £

5

Schedule Claim for [NAME] of Service Charges 2017/18 - Sheet 3 SCHEDULE 3 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL Charge Locker Maintenance 144.00 See Category 8.8 Page 27 10.00% 14.40 14.40 14.40 [NAME] 144.00 £ SUB-TOTAL 14.40 £ 14.40 £ 14.40 £ SCHEDULE 4 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL [NAME] 2,860.00 See Category 14.1 Page 36 3.846% 110.00 110.00 110.00 [NAME] 0 De-[NAME] 1,632.00 [NAME] 2,664.00 See Category 14.3 Page 37 3.846% 102.46 102.46 102.46 [NAME] 348 [NAME] 1,782.00 [NAME] 822.00 [NAME]-TOTAL 212.45 £ 212.45 £ 212.45 £ TOTAL 1,673.78 £ 1,673.78 £ 1,673.78 £

5

TRIBUNAL NOTE: THE [NAME] NOT BEEN UPDATED BY THE TRIBUNAL

DECISION OF SUMS ALLOWED Schedule Claim for [NAME] of Service Charges 2018/19 - Sheet 1 SCHEDULE 1 - GROUNDS MAINTENANCE & [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL STATUTORY Accountant Certification Fee 570.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 5.55% 31.64 31.64 31.64 [NAME] 570 Bank Charges 128.00 [NAME] Management Fee 6,000.00 See Category 15.1 Page 37 5.55% 333.00 333.00 333.00 [NAME] 3,000.00 [NAME]/[NAME] 68.00 See Category 2.4 Page 19 5.55% 3.77 3.77 3.77 [NAME] 0.00 INSURANCE Grounds Public Liability 550.00 [NAME] 5.55% Estate Assets ([NAME] & [NAME]) 825.00 [NAME] 5.55% [NAME] 750.00 See Category 5.0 Page 22 Applicants Claim Accepted MAINTENANCE REPAIRS Estate Repairs 1,585.00 [NAME] [ADDRESS] Contract 20,081.00 [NAME] & Inspection 1,150.00 [NAME]-TOTAL 368.41 £ 368.41 £ 368.41 £

5

Schedule Claim for [NAME] of Service Charges 2018/19 - Sheet 2 SCHEDULE 2 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL STATUTORY Accountant 570.00 See Category 2.1 Page 18 11.11% 63.33 63.33 63.33 [NAME] 570.00 Bank Charges 53.00 [NAME] Management Fee 4,000.00 See Category 15.2 Page 38 11.11% 444.40 444.40 444.40 [NAME] 2,000.00 [NAME]/[NAME] 41.00 See Category 2.4 Page 19 11.11% 4.56 4.56 4.56 [NAME] 0.00 INSURANCE Credit Interest & Charges 496.92 See Category 3.5 Page 21 11.11% 55.21 55.21 55.21 [NAME] 0.00 [NAME] 4,567.00 [NAME] £1,500 250.00 [NAME] Supply 550.00 See Category 5.0 Page 22 C Landlords Electric Meter K11C00183 2,648.00 See Category 5.0 Page 22 MAINTENANCE REPAIRS Internal 150.00 [NAME] 560.00 [NAME] 530.00 [NAME] 378.00 [NAME] & Repairs 1,001.00 [NAME] - Line rental [PHONE] 357.00 [NAME] Service Contract 45.00 [NAME] Line Rental & Calls [PHONE] 575.00 See Category 13.1 Page 35 12.50% 71.88 71.88 71.88 [NAME] 381.00 [NAME]-TOTAL 639.36 £ 639.36 £ 639.36 £

5

Schedule Claim for [NAME] of Service Charges 2018/19 - Sheet 3 SCHEDULE 3 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL [NAME] 600.00 See Category 5.0 Page 22 Applicants Claim Accepted SUB-TOTAL SCHEDULE 4 - [NAME] TENANTS COMMENTS % [NAME] LANDLORDS COMMENTS FINAL POSITION FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL HEARING SUMS ALLOWED BY TRIBUNAL De-[NAME] 1,512.00 [NAME] 126.00 [NAME] 1,398.00 [NAME]-TOTAL - £ - £ - £ TOTAL 1,007.77 £ 1,007.77 £ 1,007.77 £