First-tier Tribunal Decides on Reasonableness of Service Charges

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AY/LSC/2019/0127 Property : 4, [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] [COUNSEL] (leaseholder [NAME] B) Representative

Mrs. [COUNSEL] Party : Mr. [COUNSEL]. [NAME] (Estate of Mr. [RESPONDENT] leaseholder [NAME] A) Respondent : [redacted] Representative : Mr. [COUNSEL]. [COUNSEL] of Counsel Type of [NAME] :

Liability to pay and/ or the reasonableness of service charges, S.27A(1) Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and administration charges para 5(a) Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Tribunal members :

Mr [NAME]. [NAME]

Mr [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] and venue of hearing : 10 am, 3 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 7 October 2019.

This decision replaces that of 12 August 2019, following Review.

DECISION Correcting accidental errors or omissions under rule 50 of the tribunal’s procedure rules

2

Decision (1) The Tribunal determines that S.20B of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not apply to prevent any of the sums from being demanded from the applicant as service charges in the years 2015/16 and 2016/17. (2) The Tribunal determines the following items and sums are reasonable payable and proportionately recoverable for [NAME], as service charges: Year 2016/17: 1.Insurance £83.56 £172.60; 2.Surveyor £810 inc VAT; 3.Rubbish removal £300; 4.Additional insurance £172.60 £93.56; 5.External decoration £6372 £5,400; 6.RTM S.93 costs NIL; 7.[NAME]; 8.Management fee £432; 9.Works Consultation £270 plus VAT = £324. (3) The Tribunal determines the following items and sums are reasonable payable and proportionately recoverable for [NAME] as service charges: Year 2015/16: 1.Insurance £520; 2.[NAME] £755.04; 3.[NAME] £252; 4.[NAME] £6; 5.Diffuser installation £47.92; 6.[NAME] £251.40; 7.[NAME]. (4) The Tribunal determines that an Administration charge of £60, made by the respondent for the collection of rent, is not payable, by an order under Para.5(a) schedule 11, CLARA 2002.

(5) The Tribunal determines that the respondents costs incurred in defending this claim should not be recovered from the applicant, by an order under S.20C, L&TAct 1985. (6) The Tribunal determines that the [NAME] fee of £100 and hearing fee of £200 are both repaid to the applicant by the respondent. [NAME] and [NAME]

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 Applicant carried out in the years 2015/16 and 2016/17. The Applicant seeks a determination under para5(a) schedule 11, Commonhold and Leasehold Act 2002. 2. [NAME] were issued from this Tribunal, by Judge Latham, on 3 April 2019. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the Appendix to this decision.

3. The [NAME] related to: a) Service charge costs incurred in 2015/16 and; b) Service charge costs incurred in 2016/17 (March to 9 October

3 2017). After the second date the tenants of the Building (No.[ADDRESS]) took over management through an [COMPANY]. It also questioned whether service charges were barred by S.20(B) L&T1985. It challenged an administrative charge for collection of rent. Lastly it sought to recover its Tribunal costs; and to bar the landlord from recovering related costs through the lease under S.20(C) L&T 1985.

4. Although the [NAME] appeared to narrow the [NAME] down to a smaller number of items, it was made clear by the applicant at the substantive hearing that it concerned several items under two service charge years. as well as ancillary items as set out in the original [NAME]. The Tribunal therefore dealt with all items disputed, adopting the [NAME] form questions in preference to those set out in the [NAME]. Hearing 5. The [NAME] provided for a hearing on 30 May 2019, which was postponed to 3 June 2019 at [ADDRESS]1. Neither the [NAME], nor respondent, attended. The applicants were represented by Mrs [APPELLANT] assisted by Ms [APPELLANT] the [NAME]; the respondent was represented by Mr [COUNSEL] of Counsel.

6. The Tribunal proceeded by hearing in turn from each party through their representatives on each matter. No oral evidence was given but, written material in the bundle was presented to and examined by, the Tribunal. Background and Issues 7. No.[ADDRESS] ([NAME]) was a terraced Victorian house located in Brixton, later converted into 3 self contained flats. [NAME] is now managed by an [COMPANY] formed by tenants of the flats, but during the periods in issue was managed by [RESPONDENT] on behalf of landlord [RESPONDENT]..

8. Neither party requested an inspection and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

9. The lease provisions setting out the liability to pay a service charge and the proportions of the whole cost due from this leaseholder were not in dispute: Neither were the lease provisions determining the extent of each demise or the liability on the landlord to provide services to retained and common parts.

10. The Tribunal received one bundle. It also received, with the applicant’s agreement, a copy of the ‘statement of account’ dated 25 January 2018 for [NAME] 4b, from the respondent, at the hearing. Material was presented

4 in reverse order, dealing with 2016/17 and then 2015/16 and then ancillary matters.

11. The Tribunal had to determine six issues:

1) If S.20(B) acted to bar recovery of service charges.

2) Services charges reasonable and payable for 2016/17.

3) Service charges reasonable and payable for 2015/16.

4) Administration Charges reasonable and payable.

5) If an order under S.20(C) should be made.

6) If the applicant’s Tribunal costs of [NAME] should be paid by the respondent. Parties Cases and Tribunal Reasons 12. S.20B: Does S.20B of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 apply to prevent any of the sums demanded from the applicant as service charges in the years 2015/16 and/0r 2016/17 ? 13. The applicant argued that S.20B applied. The demands and accounts had not been served correctly, having been repeatedly sent to the [COMPANY], rather than the tenants. The notice summarizing the tenant’s entitlement to information was also absent as was the correct lease compliant certification of the accounts. The accounts contained no information on the reserve funds and the applicant was concerned that money paid over by for earlier years had not been properly accounted for by the landlord.

14. The respondent argued that S.20B did not apply. The aim of the law was to ensure that a tenant was aware of a forthcoming service charge bill and an estimate of its size. There was no requirement on the landlord to send the actual bill within the 18 months, simply for the landlord to make the tenant aware, within 18 months of the cost being incurred, of that bill and its approximate size, to be issued at a later date. This had been done. There had been a notification of a bill served on the tenant by March 2017; within the period required. The criticism from the tenant as to the absence of certification and late production of annual accounts related to those required of and provided by the respondent to [NAME], in the handover of [NAME].

15. Decision: The Tribunal agreed with the respondent. In accordance with the requirements of S.20B, sufficient notice of the estimated costs for the service charges had been provided to the tenants. They did not have to be in a set form or be defined figures, be certified or be accompanied by the summary of rights to still be adequate notice. 16. 2016/17: Insurance: £991.46. The applicant stated that [NAME] had been over insured. The building sum insured was too large; and the period for which it had been insured too long. The applicant presented comparative insurance quote of £540 pa from the NFU for the same cover, based on the details it had received from the landlord and

5 on its own commissioned building cost reinstatement survey and valuation. Copies of both were provided to the Tribunal. This quote equated to a premiums of £83.56 93.56 for ‘base cover’ and £172.60 for ‘additional cover’ for the [NAME] in the period in 2016 after annual renewal, but before [NAME] took over arrangements. The applicant confirmed that the subsequent [NAME] arrangements by [NAME] had since been effected in line with this. The applicant therefore regarded such prices as a measure of what should be reasonable and payable rather than, in their view, the inflated and overlong insurance arrangements of the landlord. The applicant stated that the landlord could have easily given the 45 days notice through their [NAME] to cancel their existing insurance policy timed to be effective from [NAME] handover date and thus avoid double insurance. The respondent referred to [NAME] as being insured on a wider block policy of many buildings and that it would not be possible to remove this one part way through the insurance year. Hence the premium had to be paid in full for the entirety, by the landlord. However, the respondent was unable to provide any documentation in support of this argument and in particular a copy of the block policy to which the Tribunal had been referred; the schedule of buildings on it; the level of cover; and the premium specifically attributable in it, to the Building. The landlords existing insurance arrangements were opaque.

17. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the applicants written quotes and later bills received through [NAME] for the buildings insurance as good evidence of the sums reasonably payable for adequate buildings insurance cover. The Tribunal also agreed that the landlord should have cancelled the double insurance as allowed for on notice, but did not, leading to wasted premium that should not be borne by the tenants. 18. 2016/17: Surveyor: £810. The applicant challenged the fee charged by the surveyor to the landlord to prepare a building reinstatement cost assessment (RCA), on which to base the level of insurance cover required for the Building, of (£675 +VAT). They considered £350 inc VAT, was sufficient, based on the fee they had been charged by their surveyor in preparing their own RCA. They also felt that the lease did not provide for such recharge. The respondent directed the Tribunal to the general lease clause requiring the tenant to pay the costs of all contractors and advisors on which support was sought and re- affirmed that the cost at £810 had been reasonable for the work done.

19. Decision: Whilst the cost was higher than similar work undertaken for the tenants at [NAME], the Tribunal accepted the landlord’s surveyor’s bill as fair remuneration for the work undertaken. It also acknowledged the respondents reference to the lease provision for recovery of such costs through the service charge. 20. 2016/17: Rubbish: £300. The applicant challenged this charge on the basis that the material arising from internal work to a [NAME] had

6 been temporarily left in a communal area by one of the tenants who was planned to move it later. There should have been no charge by the landlord on all tenants. However, the landlord removed it first and billed for the cost. The respondent pointed out that the materials were in the way of the [NAME] who were working on the exterior. The respondent referred the Tribunal to the obligation on the landlord to remove rubbish and the entitlement to levy a charge from the resultant bill.

21. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the requirement in the lease on the landlord to remove rubbish from common areas, particularly as it had reportedly inhibited the work of the decorators painting the exterior of the building. The cost incurred was found to be reasonable in doing so. 22. 2016/17: Additional Insurance: £1267.28. Dealt with above.

23. Decision: Dealt with above. 24. 2016/17: External Decorations: £5,400. The applicant whilst accepting that the fixed price arising from the S.20 consultation process for major works had been satisfactory, queried the additional sum charged on completion by the contractor. The additional work should have been done in the price quoted. The applicant offered £4,750, and the additional £650 should not have been paid on this basis to the contractor. The respondent referred the Tribunal to the quote and final invoice and that the additional charge was for additional work for repairs prior to decorations, which had not been earlier specified or priced for.

25. Decision: The Tribunal on careful consideration of the descriptive notes within final bill from the contractor, agreed that the additional charge had been for additional work of a different nature. These were preparatory works, the existence of which had not been noticed by the landlord, and so not tendered for, nevertheless they did need to be done before all of the decorative works could be completed. Their cost was determined as reasonable and payable. 26. 2016/17: S.93 RTM related costs: £360. The tenant stated that this should be NIL. The respondent withdrew the cost from the service charge bill where it did not belong. The applicant withdrew their challenge accordingly.

27. Decision: Nothing was due. They should never have been included by the landlord. 28. 2016/17: [NAME]: £36. The applicant regarded this phone number to a [COMPANY] as a pointless, ineffective and expensive ‘facility’ and did not regard it as a reasonable and payable charge. Its provision was not required under the lease or rechargeable. The

7 respondent argued that it was a standard facility provided here as in other buildings it owned and managed, but was unable to provide a contract for the service or an invoice in support which would confirm the nature and cost of the service provided.

29. Decision: The Tribunal was unconvinced of the usefulness of this ‘service’, had no details on which to assess what it added and noted that the lease made no specific provision for it. Its cost was determined as not reasonable and payable. 30. 2016/17: Management Fee: £594. The applicant regarded the sum as excessive especially considering the poor service, late and confusing provision of costs and accounting for the other services. More significantly it was in respect of the whole year and not just to the point where the management was taken over by [NAME]. For the ‘management period’ from 31 March 2016 to 10 October 2016 it should at most only be proportionate of the estimate of £792 for the whole year, ie £432. The respondent argued that the cost for this, the last year in which the landlord had used its own agent, would give rise to more cost particularly around the change over to [NAME]. The respondent was however unable to produce to the Tribunal the invoice, nor the contract of engagement setting out the full terms, duties and fee basis of any particular sum arising.

31. Decision: There was no credible evidence to support the landlords argument for a higher proportionate fee as it was the last year of its management. Any direct costs of [NAME] were dealt with as part of that process and not under the service charge. The absence of a completed property management contract, details of services and their costs with invoices was unhelpful to the landlord’s case. The Tribunal agreed with the tenants suggested proportionate fee of £432 for the part of the year in which [NAME] took over, as reasonable and payable. 32. 2015/16: Insurance: £991.46. The fundamental arguments regarding over insurance, the absence of supporting details of the ‘block policy’ were briefly re-iterated by the tenant. They again directed the Tribunal’s attention to the quoted and subsequently incurred actual costs of insurance borne by [NAME]. They offered a proportionate sum of £520 for the period based on those quoted and later actually paid through [NAME], in 2016/17. The respondents arguments mirrored those of 2016/17 save for the double insurance which did not arise here. Again only very limited details of the landlords insurance were available to the Tribunal.

33. Decision: Dealt with above. 34. 2015/16: [NAME]: £755.04. The applicant withdrew their challenge.

8 35. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the cost. 36. 2015/16: [NAME]: £252. The applicant did not challenge the sum charged, but rather the ability of the landlord to bill this under the service charge. The respondent referred the tribunal to the lease clause for the recharge of costs incurred in employing contractors and others providing services.

37. Decision: As for the cost of management and other services the Tribunal accepted that the cost of this to the landlord, was recoverable under the lease in full. 38. 2015/16: [NAME]: £6. The applicant withdrew their challenge.

39. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the cost. 40. 2015/16: Diffuser installation: £47.92. The applicant withdrew their challenge.

41. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the cost. 42. 2015/16: [NAME]: £251.40. The applicant withdrew their challenge.

43. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the cost. 44. 2015/16: [NAME] £36. The applicants and respondents cases were as above.

45. Decision: Dealt with above.

46. Administration Charge: £60. The applicant was not prepared to pay the £60 variable administration charge levied by the landlord for the collection of the ground rent as it was not provided for in the lease. The respondent was unable to refer the Tribunal to the provision for a charge of any sort for the collection of the ground rent. The Tribunal noted that the issue did not concern the level and payability of the ground rent itself, but rather the alleged cost of collection.

47. Decision: The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s argument. There was nothing payable by way of a variable administrative charge in the lease and it determined nothing was payable.

48. S.20 Works Consultation Administration: £860. The landlord presented a bill from the retained managing agent for this cost but provided no other details. The tenant argued that the work consisted of

9 a few letters from the agent to the tenants and that in any case the work should be included in the annual fee for [NAME] that they already paid.

49. Decision: The Tribunal was not provided with a copy of the completed and priced management contract between agent and respondent. However such administration of consultation is typically undertaken as an additional duty for an additional sum related to the cost of the works. The small number of flats, the simplicity and the low cost of the works involved, £5,400 in all, would in the expert opinion of the Tribunal give rise to a charge at 5% of the total contract price, that is, £270 plus VAT as reasonable and payable irrespective of the size of the bill for unspecified work tendered by the agent.

50. Section 20c: The applicant argued that the lease does not provide for recovery of such costs incurred by the landlord in dealing with these challenges. The respondent agreed that the lease did not so provide and that such recharge would be difficult to justify if a levy were attempted and later challenged.

51. Decision: The Tribunal makes an order preventing the landlord from reclaiming any costs associated with this [NAME]. The landlord’s documentation, its detail, reliability and timing of provision to the tenant were patchy, unreliable and late. This inadequate response further confused the tenant on more than one issue above, when it should not have, if the landlord had presented it properly when demanding service charges. Furthermore the landlord had still been tardy in responding to requests for further information from the tenant around their initial challenges. The absence of the respondent’s attendance or that of its managing agent the Tribunal hearing did nothing to assist its case. The only evidence available was in written form and there was no-one through whom it could be investigated at the hearing. While a significant number of challenges by the applicant were dropped at the hearing it was only at a late stage because of the respondent’s failure to explain and justify its charges and actions clearly.

52. The respondent is familiar with the workings of the Tribunal. Late incomplete or absent provision of evidence in a dispute is contrary to the requirements of Tribunal [NAME]. It is unhelpful to both the applicant and more particularly it’s unhelpful to the Tribunal: It is completely unwarranted. 53. [NAME] & Tribunal Hearing fees: The parties did not make specific representations on these.

54. Decision: The landlord is ordered to refund these costs in full to the applicant for the reasons dealt with above.

10 Name: [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT]: 12 August 2019

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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, [NAME] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

11 Appendix of relevant legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18 (1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent - (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs. (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a [NAME], in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose - (a) "costs" includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period - (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. Section 27A (1) An [NAME] may be made to the appropriate Tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to - (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable,

12 (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An [NAME] may also be made to the appropriate Tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to - (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (4) No [NAME] under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which - (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral Tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either— (a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate Tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to a tenant and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement—

13 (a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount— (a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount. (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20B (1) If any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge were incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment of the service charge is served on the tenant, then (subject to subsection (2)), the tenant shall not be liable to pay so much of the service charge as reflects the costs so incurred. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if, within the period of 18 months beginning with the date when the relevant costs in question were incurred, the tenant was notified in writing that those costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge. Section 20C (1) A tenant may make an [NAME] for an order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court, residential property Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal, or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are

14 not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the [NAME]. (2) The [NAME] shall be made— (a) in the case of court proceedings, to the court before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the [NAME] is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court; (aa) in the case of proceedings before a residential property Tribunal, to that Tribunal; (b) in the case of proceedings before a residential property Tribunal, to the Tribunal before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the [NAME] is made after the proceedings are concluded, to any residential property Tribunal; (c) in the case of proceedings before the Upper Tribunal, to the Tribunal; (d) in the case of arbitration proceedings, to the arbitral Tribunal or, if the [NAME] is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court. (3) The court or Tribunal to which the [NAME] is made may make such order on the [NAME] as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances. Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Schedule 11, paragraph 1 (1) In this Part of this Schedule “administration charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent which is payable, directly or indirectly— (a) for or in connection with the grant of approvals under his lease, or applications for such approvals, (b) for or in connection with the provision of information or documents by or on behalf of the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, (c) in respect of a failure by the tenant to make a payment by the due date to the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant, or (d) in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in his lease. (2) But an amount payable by the tenant of a dwelling the rent of which is registered under Part 4 of the Rent Act 1977 (c. 42) is not an administration charge, unless the amount registered is entered as a variable amount in pursuance of section 71(4) of that Act.

15 (3) In this Part of this Schedule “variable administration charge” means an administration charge payable by a tenant which is neither— (a) specified in his lease, nor (b) calculated in accordance with a formula specified in his lease. (4) An order amending sub-paragraph (1) may be made by the appropriate national authority. Schedule 11, paragraph 2 A variable administration charge is payable only to the extent that the amount of the charge is reasonable. Schedule 11, paragraph 5 (1) An [NAME] may be made to the appropriate Tribunal for a determination whether an administration charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) The jurisdiction conferred on the appropriate Tribunal in respect of any matter by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter. (4) No [NAME] under sub-paragraph (1) may be made in respect of a matter which— (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral Tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. (6) An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination— (a) in a particular manner, or

16 (b) on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject matter of an [NAME] under sub-paragraph (1).