First-tier Tribunal Determines Fair Service Charge Apportionment

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case references : CAM/26UB/LSC/2023/0043 Property : 271[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Applicant’s Representative : [NAME_2], of Counsel Respondent : [redacted] Respondent’s Representative : [NAME_5] of application : Application for determination of liability to pay service charge pursuant to s. 27A Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : [NAME_6] & [NAME_6]. (EST MAN) FRICS Venue : [COMPANY_7], Waltham Abbey Date of Decision : 16th January 2025

DECISION

1. The application 1.1. The Applicant is the lessee of the maisonette known as [ADDRESS], [ADDRESS], Waltham Cross. She seeks determinations as to the payability of various items included within the service charges payable under her lease for the years March 2019 – March 2024.

2

2. The building 2.1. In order to understand the disputes between the parties it is necessary first to describe the building of which the Applicant’s premises are part. The building comprises a parade of [NAME_8] on the ground floor; separate premises on the first floor which were formerly in use as a snooker hall but have now been converted for use as 5 residential units and are subject to a distinct headlease and are managed by the agents as a single unit; and 5 maisonettes on the second and third floors, of which the Applicant’s premises are one. The maisonettes are accessed via a separate enclosed staircase to the right of the building as it is viewed from the road. That staircase passes over the vehicular access to the rear of the building to a terrace from which the maisonettes are accessed. To the rear of the building there is a car park which accommodates 24 vehicles. It is used both by the [NAME_8] and by the tenants of the residential properties. There is a steel fire escape from all the upper floors into the car park. Whether or not the first floor premises are strictly entitled to access the fire escape was not clearly established on the evidence before us but it was clear in the course of our inspection that in practice there was a door from the first floor, which was open when we inspected, by the means of which the fire escape was accessible.

3. The lease 3.1. The original lease of the Applicant’s premises is dated 17th August 1976. That lease was extended by the Applicant on 3rd July 2013. 3.2. The material provisions of the Applicant’s lease are as follows:

“And also paying by way of additional rent a due proportion of the costs of the Landlord of carrying out the works and supplying the services specified in the Fourth Schedule hereto such proportion and amount in case of [… the lease is illegible but it probably says ‘dispute’] to be determined by the Landlords Surveyors for the time being whose decision shall be final and binding on the Tenants such amount shall be assessed on a yearly basis from the second year of

3

the term and from year to year … The Landlords surveyors shall before 25th day of March each year produce to the Tenants a certified and audited statement of expenditure incurred by the Landlords under the provisions of the Fourth Schedule hereto in the year ended the preceding 25th December and any deficiency between the amount expended and the amount calculated from the Tenants shall be paid with the other rents due from the Tenants on such day and at that time the Tenants shall pay the sum estimated by the Landlords Surveyors as the amount of the costs for the then current years And also paying by way of additional rent a sum or sum of money equal to a due proportion of the amount which from time to time the Landlords may expend in effecting or maintaining the insurance of the Building of which the demised premises form … such proportion and such amount in case of dispute to be determined by the Landlords or their Surveyors for the time being whose decision shall be final and binding on the Tenants …”

3.3. The works and services specified in the Fourth Schedule are as follows:

“1. The repair of the common access way and rear car parking area shown edged brown on the plan annexed hereto.

2. The lighting cleansing re-decoration and repair of the common staircase shown edged green on the plan annexed hereto.

3. The lighting cleansing and repair of the common access balcony shown edged green on the plan annexed hereto.

4. The maintenance and repair of the fire escape staircase shown coloured brown on the plan annexed hereto.

5. Maintenance repair and replacement (if required) of the boundary fence surrounding the area shown edged brown on the plan annexed.”

4. Apportionment 4.1. The key area of disagreement between the parties is as to the apportionments made by the Respondent’s surveyor of the costs incurred. 4.2. The approach which should be adopted by the Tribunal to disputes of that sort has recently been the subject of significant decisions by the Supreme Court and the Upper Tribunal namely: [NAME_9]

4

Rent GP Ltd v Williams [2023] UKSC 6 and Hawk Investment Properties Ltd v Eames [2023] UKUT 168 (LC). 4.3. The Respondent accepts that it is the effect of these decisions that the terms of the lease which provided that the decision of its surveyor should be binding on the Applicant are to be disregard pursuant to Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.27A(6). 4.4. According to [NAME_10] the first question for us is whether the apportionments which have been made by the Respondent’s surveyor are in accordance with the terms of the lease. In this case, that means the first question is whether the proportions which have been demanded of the Applicant are ‘due’. In our view the word ‘due’ in this context is to be interpreted as, fair or reasonable. 4.5. The question whether the apportionment was ‘reasonable’ is to be distinguished from whether it was ‘rational’ in the manner explained by Lord Sumption in Hayes v Willoughby [2013] UKSC 17 at 14, namely that reasonableness is concerned with the outcome of a person’s thoughts and intentions, namely, whether a hypothetical reasonable person would have reached the decision which the Respondent did; that is an open-ended and flexible test. 4.6. Our assessments in each case insofar as they are required in relation to this issue are explained in our responses to each challenged item of expenditure are set out in the Scott Schedule which is annexed hereto.

5. Provision of information 5.1. A number of the original disputes between the parties have now been resolved as a result of information requested by the Applicant having, belatedly, been provided by the Respondent. However, it was a feature of the hearing before us that it proved impossible, despite the Respondent’s assurances to the contrary, for either the Applicant or the Respondent’s agent’s representative to access the Respondent’s [NAME_11] to which it said the documents requested by the Applicant had been

5

uploaded. Failures of this sort needlessly increase the extent of disputes of this sort and damage the relationship between the parties and are evidence of unreasonable conduct by the landlord. Tenants are entitled by virtue of s. 22 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 to be afforded reasonable facilities to inspect the documents which are said to support the sums identified in the accounts.

6. Conclusions 6.1. Our conclusions as a matter of principle in relation to the outstanding issues revealed by the Revised Scott Schedule filed by the parties pursuant to our directions. It will be for the parties to make and we hope agree upon the necessary calculations.

6

APPENDIX 1- RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. 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.

2. 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 person making the application.

3. 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.

4. 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 making the application is seeking.

1

UPDATED SCHEDULE PER ORDER DATED 16th JANUARY 2025 – TRIBUNAL’S DECISION DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2019 Case Reference: CAM/26UB/LSC/2023/0043 Premises: 271c [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM COST TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) [NAME_12] 1 2103.91 This is excessive. Monthly invoices include for car park litter pick. Should be excluded. Cleaning amount for 7 flats in block should be no more than £500 pa based on similar properties. Invoices include items relating to the car park eg litter pick and refuse clearance. This is not [NAME_12] service charge. Should be apportioned correctly.

A submits that the cost be apportioned The cleaning is carried out weekly. The invoices are delivered monthly. Occasionally there are one off for extras depending on the circumstances. The total cost for the year equates to just under £44 per visit (based on 48 visits) whereas the proposed £500 p.a. would be a little over £10 per visit. The same cleaners have been in place for all of the years in issue, in one of those years comparison quotations were obtained, the existing cleaners were the cheapest. The invoices separately identify the charge for the residential common parts and the charge for the car park and are apportioned to the expense schedule accordingly. Note in 2017 the charge was £2068, in 2018 it was £1,948.

No additional comments. We recorded that we were told by the Applicant that this item was not in dispute during the course of the hearing. It was not the purpose of the directions which we gave after the hearing, which required the Applicant to identify the matters remaining in dispute, to enable the Applicant to resile from concessions which she had already made. The purpose was to enable further matters to be resolved as a result of the further information to be provided by the Respondent. It is not open to the Applicant to resile for those concessions now. To permit her to do so would be unfair to the Respondent who was entitled to rely upon those concessions.

2

50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th to each leaseholder) and 50% to the car park (apportioned 4% or 1/25th) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out.

[NAME_12] 2 751.73 This is incorrectly apportioned to [NAME_12] instead of the car park & [NAME_8]. (The amount charged for the refuse collection in the car park is only £133.87). I would not expect this cost to be more than £100.

A submits that refuse collection which, as witnessed at the site inspection, includes recurring fly- tipping, should be entirely placed in the car park The amounts apportioned between [NAME_12] and the car park depends on where the rubbish has been left, the quantity and type. Fly tipping in the car park tends to be smaller items and rubbish in black bin liners. Rubbish left on the balconies and in the common parts tend to be redundant white goods, beds and the like. Noted that [NAME_1] does not challenge the cost merely the apportionment. No basis of calculation or evidence is given for his suggestion of £100 being apportioned to [NAME_12]. Attached is correspondence between [NAME_13] and the applicant’s managing agent about dumped rubbish, in and around the common parts, claimed to have come out of flat 271c. Also attached is a copy of a general letter dated 15 February 2019 to all [NAME_14] about items being left in cupboards and communal landings. This does not seem to be reasonable. On our inspection it seemed to be clear that the bulk of the work was attributable to rubbish being left in the car park.

The correct apportionment seems to us to be 50:50.

3

schedule and that the correct apportionment is 4% per the car park schedule.

No additional comments. [NAME_12] 3 300.00 No invoices provided. This amount has been charged/apportioned incorrectly and appears to be a duplication - should be removed. The pest control charge that appears in the accounts for the car park is zero. Assume pests are located in car park and by those bins and not on the 2nd floor.

A submits that as is plain, the source of vermin stems from the bins in the car park. A submits this cost should be apportioned 4% per the car park schedule and the It is denied that this invoice has not been provided to the Applicant and attached is a copy taken directly from the invoices which can be accessed from the [NAME_11] for this building. It is not a duplication. Vermin eradication is a particular problem at [ADDRESS]. Either from dumped rubbish or the bin store. They climb up the pipes and have been found nesting in meter cupboards when doors have been left unlocked or damaged. It was then found that the vermin were, in places, chewing insulation of electric wires/cables and chewing holes in pipes and/or timber areas. It is submitted that costs have been properly apportioned between 271 block and car park.

No additional comments other than it is submitted that pests and vermin do not come from a particular location such as the car park, the adjoining premises, or some other breeding ground. It is not the venue of origin which is important: it is where they can find warmth and access to food which is important. It is our view, and in this respect we rely particularly upon the expert knowledge of [NAME_6], that the Applicant is correct: control of vermin begins in the car park where the vast bulk of the food is to be found. Insofar as rodent may nest elsewhere and/or cause damage elsewhere, the source of the problem is food waste in the car park, so the cost should be apportioned in its entirety to the car park.

4

pest control item be removed from [NAME_12] schedule altogether and placed in the car park schedule.

[NAME_12] 4 1780.00 Cannot reconcile as no invoices provided. Cost for this seems excessive for 7 flats and would expect total to be no more than £700.

Please provide breakdown of the cost and to what it relates and confirm whether the amount covers car park, flats & [NAME_8] below.

A submits that this work was already carried out in 2019 by [COMPANY_15] [103] together with other door maintenance work [98,101,102]. Attached is the invoice for £1,780 which has been provided to the Applicant and is on the [NAME_11]. The doors to the common entrance hall and staircase, then onto the rear access balcony, are frequently damaged either by residents (visitors who have forgotten or do not have access codes with them), or by local vagrants who occasionally gain access (particularly during cold/winter periods) for night time occupation in the entrance hall. Attached is correspondence with the Applicant about access codes and a copy of the [COMPANY_16] invoice for the two doors.

The Respondent submits that damage to doors is not a one-off occurrence but a continuing occasional problem. There is no duplication. The doors are damaged occasionally and required to be repaired. This sum is payable in full.

5

This is detailed in Item 7 “Doors Maintenance” below.

A submits that the invoice for [COMPANY_16] [97] from [NAME_17] is not a recoverable invoice and should be removed from the service charge altogether.

[NAME_12] 5 186.00 Cannot reconcile as no invoices provided.

A submits that this invoice [98] is already accounted for in item 7 below (Doors Attached is a copy of the invoice which has been sent to [NAME_1] and is on the [NAME_11]. That invoice sets out the work carried out and the basis of the charge which was for electrics serving the [NAME_12]. The Applicant’s proportion of this invoice is £26.57.

This is a separate invoice in relation to the electrics as distinct from a door mechanism. There is no duplication this sum is payable for the reasons given by the Respondent.

6

Maintenance) and should therefore be removed.

[NAME_12], gutters & pipes

Item 6 2501.89 Cannot reconcile as no invoices provided.

Appears very excessive as already another amount of £996.81 charged separately for car park.

I do not believe the 2501.89 relates solely to [NAME_12] and should therefore be apportioned correctly.

A submits that the total drainage cost Attached are two invoices which have been provided to [NAME_1] and are on the [NAME_11]. These are the main invoices apportioned between the schedules following a report of drains overflowing. They were cleared, an investigation carried out, and repairs found to be necessary.

As stated above, the cost was apportioned between the schedules. This cost relates to the whole estate, 263- 271, and should be apportioned accordingly.

7

of £3,498 (£714 + £2,784) [99,100] should be apportioned 1/17th as the repair relates to the drainage system serving entire building. The invoices confirm this.

[NAME_12] 7 1642.00 Cannot reconcile as no invoices provided.

A submits that the total spent on the door maintenance (locks & frame) as provided from the 2019 invoices [98,101,102,103] is £1,374 (£186 + £96 + £108 + £984) and Attached are the three main invoices for this item which have been sent to [NAME_1] and are on the [NAME_11]. It is confirmed that these relate to [NAME_12].

No additional comments. These costs were incurred because of damage to the doors and are payable.

8

not £1,642. The difference of £268 should be removed from the service charge.

[NAME_12] – management fees

Item 8 2191.80 This equates to £182.64 per flat (if 8.3333% is used per the invoicing). This is excessive as the management relates to areas beyond the block such as the [NAME_8] and the car park. I would expect the management fee to be correctly apportioned for [NAME_12]. On this basis I calculate that the total for [NAME_12] should be no more than £613.70 (£87.67 per flat).

A submits that as a large part of the management work relates to the car park, the management fee should correctly be The budget report with the percentages applied to the different schedules is attached to the Witness Statement of [NAME_18]. The Management fees are apportioned on the basis that each Lessee in the building is debited with an equal share of the total management fee, that is: 7 flats, 4 [NAME_8] and the first floor premises which are held on one Lease, originally the snooker hall and now sub let as 5 additional flats. On that basis, each Lessee is debited with 8.3333% of the management fee. It is submitted that that is a fair and reasonable apportionment.

No additional comments save for submissions made separately about scheduled apportionments. This is a small but relatively complex estate which requires considerable management input. In this context, and given the proximity to London the price per unit is reasonable in our professional experience, and has been reasonable apportioned.

It is noted that there is rightly no complaint made by the Applicant about the quality of the service provided by the managing agent which in our view was, in the main, good.

9

apportioned 50% to the car park (apportioned 4% per flat) and 50% to the flats & [NAME_8] (apportioned 8.3333%).

[NAME_12] 9 2633.10 This appears to be an error and should be removed as does not appear to be solely attributable to [NAME_12]. I would expect the actual to be circa £800 as it was in 2023.

A respectfully submits that the buildings insurance has not been competitively tendered as R has conceded that R procured through a broker and accepted quotes which included commission backed arrangements to the broker and to R. A submits R did not The Tribunal is referred to the income and expenditure statement for the year showing that the total insurance premium was £6,810.98 and apportioned with £4,177.88 charged to the 4 [NAME_8] and the first floor premises, £2,633.10 apportioned to [NAME_12]. The applicant appears to be submitting that the £2,633.10 is the total of the insurance premium and that it has not been apportioned. That is incorrect. The Applicants suggestion of an insurance premium of £800 appears to have been taken from the 2023 accounts. Page 3 of those accounts identifies the budget for [NAME_12], budgeted at £2,878 and charged at £822. Page 4 shows the charge for the commercial element budgeted at £7,104 and charged at £1,042 and page 8 shows building insurance pre-payments of £7,356. The sum of £822 was not the total insurance cost for one year, it was adjusted by accruals and pre-payments. It is submitted that no reasonable person The Landlord has retained a broker in order to try to find the best price and terms available. That was reasonable and the price and its apportionment are both reasonable. This sum is payable.

10

procure competitively and as the cost is higher than £250 per leaseholder this should be limited to £250. would contemplate an insurance cost for these 7 two storey flats aggregating to £822 for a full year and that if the accounts are read as a whole document, the accrual and pre-payment adjustments are clear.

Submitted that correct apportionment has taken place, that it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on professional brokers to obtain competitive quotations, and there is no alternative quotation from the Applicant.

SCHEDULE DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2020 Case Reference: CAM/26UB/LSC/2023/0043 Premises: 271c [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM COST TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) [NAME_12] 10 1451.88 This is excessive. Monthly invoices include for car park litter pick. Should be excluded. Cleaning amount for 7 flats in block should be no more The invoices are apportioned between the car park and [NAME_12]. Monthly invoices are weekly cleaning. No evidence provided for alleged charges of similar properties and respondent therefore denied an opportunity of checking that assertion.

No additional comments. It was agreed in the course of the hearing that there should be no challenge to this item. It is not permissible for the Applicant to resile from that concession for the reasons explained above.

11

than £500 pa based on similar properties. Invoices include items relating to the car park eg litter pick and refuse clearance. This is not [NAME_12] service charge. Should be apportioned correctly.

A submits that the cost be apportioned 50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th to each leaseholder) and 50% to the car park (apportioned 4% or 1/25th) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out.

Car park is now separately itemised. [NAME_12] 11 361.43 This is incorrectly apportioned to [NAME_12] instead of the car park. (The amount charged for the refuse collection The Applicant has shown the two apportionment figures. It is denied that they have been incorrectly apportioned. No evidence has been offered for the applicant’s assertion of £100. Noted that the total cost is not challenged merely the apportionment. See item 2 above.

12

in the car park is £201.37). I would not expect this cost to be more than £100.

A submits that refuse collection which, as witnessed at the site inspection, includes recurring fly- tipping, should be entirely placed in the car park schedule and that the correct apportionment is 4% per the car park schedule.

No additional comments. [NAME_12] 12 559.33 This amount has been charged/apportioned incorrectly and appears to be a duplication - should be removed. The pest control charge that appears in the accounts for the car park is £562.57. Assume pests are The income and expenditure statement of the accounts shows that the total cost is £1,122 apportioned for the different figures as stated by the Applicant; there is no duplication. As stated earlier the vermin travels up pipes and cables and is attracted to nesting places at high level, probably less disturbance and possibly where there is access into flats for food.

No additional comments. See item 3 above

13

located in car park and by those bins and not on the 2nd floor.

A submits that as is plain, the source of vermin stems from the bins in the car park. A submits this cost should be apportioned 4% per the car park schedule and the pest control item be removed from [NAME_12] schedule altogether and placed in the car park schedule.

[NAME_12] 13 2844.00 Cannot reconcile from invoices provided. Cost for this seems excessive for 7 flats and would expect total to be no more than £700.

Please provide breakdown of the The invoices have been sent to the Applicant and are available on the [NAME_11]. It is clear that the Applicant has inspected these and listed some of them below. The water main repair was in the bin store and was the water main rising up to the flats. No evidence given to support the Applicant’s assertion that £700 is adequate.

It is conceded that the tree surgery should correctly have been apportioned to the car park and that the debt collection invoice should be removed.

Otherwise the costs have been correctly apportioned and are payable.

14

cost and to what it relates and confirm whether the amount covers car park, flats & [NAME_8] below.

Appears to include tree surgery invoice (£960), [NAME_19] debt collection invoice (£205) and [NAME_20] main repair (£864). None of these relate to the [NAME_12]. Please also explain the water mains repair as other invoices for similar work in 2021.

A submits that the tree surgery invoice [104] of £960 be correctly apportioned per the car park schedule (4%) and not 1/7th as the tree is located in the car park by the boundary wall.

Conceded that tree surgery invoice should have been debited to the car park schedule. Conceded that the debt collection invoice be removed. Otherwise no additional comments.

15

A asserts that R conceded at the Tribunal that the [NAME_19] (Property Debt Collection) invoice of £205 be removed from the service charge.

A submits that the remainder of the general repairs of £1,679 (after removing aforementioned amounts) includes a [NAME_20] invoice (water main repair) dated 7/9/20 for £864 which should be apportioned 1/17th and not 1/7th as it relates to the entire property and states this on the invoice. A acknowledges that whilst this is not in the bundle it was disclosed by R as part of an email attachment.

16

[NAME_12] – management fees

Item 14 2249.52 This equates to £187.45 per flat (if 8.3333% is used per the invoicing). This is excessive as the management relates to areas beyond the block such as the [NAME_8] and the car park. I would expect the management fee to be correctly apportioned for [NAME_12]. On this basis I calculate that the total for [NAME_12] should be no more than £629.87 (£89.98 per flat).

A submits that as a large part of the management work relates to the car park, the management fee should correctly be apportioned 50% to the car park (apportioned 4% per flat) and 50% to the flats & [NAME_8] see submissions in respect of management fees for 2019. There is no duplication and apportionment has been properly calculated as shown.

No additional comments save for general submissions on apportionment. See separate document. See item 8 above.

17

(apportioned 8.3333%).

[NAME_12] 15 1771.82 This appears to be an error and should be removed as does not appear to be solely attributable to [NAME_12]. I would expect the actual to be circa £800 as it was in 2023.

A respectfully submits that the buildings insurance has not been competitively tendered as R has conceded that R procured through a broker and accepted quotes which included commission backed arrangements to the broker and to R. A submits R did not procure competitively and as the cost is higher than £250 per leaseholder this The Tribunal’s attention is drawn to the service charge and expenditure account on page 1. The total premium is £6,043.02 of which £4,271.20 was debited to the [NAME_8] and £1,771.82 to [NAME_12]. No supporting evidence for the Applicants assertion that £800 is adequate.

No additional comments. See item 9 above.

18

should be limited to £250.

[ADDRESS] – Cleaning

Item 16 808.88 There is already a charge of £684 plus VAT (£821) in the E&P cleaning invoices. See above – it should be excluded from [NAME_12] as it is a duplicate charge.

A submits that the apportionment of total cleaning costs should be apportioned 50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th or 14.2857%) and 50% to the car park (apportioned 1/25th or 4%) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out. (Please see also A’s comments in Item 10.) The Tribunal’s attention is drawn to the income and expenditure statement on page 1 of the accounts. The total cleaning cost was £2,260.80 of which £808.92 was debited to the car park schedule and £1,451.88 to the [NAME_12] schedule and the apportionments made accordingly. There is no duplication, this is merely an apportionment correctly made.

No additional comments. See item 10 above. This item has been reasonably apportioned and is payable.

19

SCHEDULE DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2021 Case Reference: CAM/26UB/LSC/2023/0043 Premises: 271c [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM COST TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) [NAME_12] 17 1509.52 This is excessive. Monthly invoices include for car park litter pick. Should be excluded. Cleaning amount for 7 flats in block should be no more than £500 pa based on similar properties. Invoices include items relating to the car park eg litter pick and refuse clearance. This is not [NAME_12] service charge. Should be apportioned correctly.

A submits that the cost be apportioned The Applicants merely re-state what they have stated for previous years. The Tribunal’s attention is drawn to page 1 of the income and expenditure statement. The total cleaning bill was £2,318.40 apportioned to £808.88 for the car park and £1,509.52 to [NAME_12]. There is no duplication, the apportionment has been correctly carried out. The £500 asserted by the Applicant has no evidence or reasoning in support.

No additional comments. This has been apportioned, see below. There is no basis to challenge that apportionment is unreasonable.

The Applicant is not entitled to resile from the concession made at the hearing for the reasons explained at item 1 above.

20

[NAME_12] 18 827.62 This is incorrectly apportioned to [NAME_12] instead of the car park. (The amount charged for the refuse collection in the car park is £444.38). I would not expect this cost to be more than £100.

A submits that refuse collection which, as witnessed at the site inspection, includes recurring fly- tipping, should be entirely placed in the car park schedule and that The Tribunal’s attention is drawn to the income and expenditure statement on page 1 of the accounts. The total cost was £1,272 apportioned to £444.38 to the car park and £827.62 to [NAME_12]. The apportionment is correct and there is no support to the applicant’s assertion that £100 would be adequate.

No additional comments. See Item 2 above.

21

the correct apportionment is 4% per the car park schedule.

[NAME_12] 19 446.96 This amount has been charged/apportioned incorrectly and should be removed. The pest control charge that appears in the accounts for the car park is £249.04. Assume pests are located in car park and by those bins.

A submits that as is plain, the source of vermin stems from the bins in the car park. A submits this cost should be apportioned 4% per the car park schedule and the pest control item be removed from [NAME_12] schedule altogether and The Tribunal’s attention is drawn to income and expenditure statement page 1 of the accounts. The total cost is £696 apportioned £249.04 to the car park and £446.96 to the [NAME_12]. The applicant is incorrect in asserting the vermin are in car park, the vermin infestation may originate on the ground floor but establishes itself at upper levels where it can find a place to nest, warmth and protection from the rain, and access to food source.

No additional comments. See Item 3 above.

22

placed in the car park schedule.

[NAME_12] 20 2712.00 Cannot reconcile from invoices provided. Cost for this seems excessive for 7 flats and would expect total to be no more than £700. Please provide breakdown of the cost and to what it relates and confirm whether the amount covers flats & [NAME_8] below. There is also another water main repair invoice (£834 - [NAME_20]) which covers more than [NAME_12]. This should not be included in General Repairs for [NAME_12] if it has been.

Following the joint site inspection, A submits that any repairs to water mains be should be The water main that was repaired serves the flats and is separate from the water main to the commercial parts of the property.

No additional comments. The apportionment is reasonable and there is no challenge to the cost. This item is payable.

23

apportioned 1/17th as they relate to the entire property.

It is accepted that the relevant invoice for [NAME_20] (20/01/21 Invoice Ref: 9081) for £834 is not in the bundle however, should be apportioned 1/17th and not 1/7th.

[NAME_12] management fees & other management fees

Item 21 2339.52 This equates to £194.95 per flat (if 8.3333% is used per the invoicing). This is excessive as the management relates to areas beyond the block such as the [NAME_8] and the car park. I would expect the management fee to be correctly apportioned for [NAME_12]. On this basis I calculate that the total for [NAME_12] should be no more than £655.07 (£93.58 per flat). This is in respect of [NAME_13]’s Management fee and similar observations apply as have been made in previous years about the management fees.

No additional comments other than general submissions on apportionment. See Item 9 above.

24

A submits that as a large part of the management work relates to the car park, the management fee should correctly be apportioned 50% to the car park (apportioned 4% per flat) and 50% to the flats & [NAME_8] (apportioned 8.3333%).

[NAME_12] 22 1654.00 Cannot reconcile cost from invoices provided. Cost for this seems excessive for 7 flats. Please provide breakdown of the cost and to what it relates and confirm whether the amount covers flats, car park & [NAME_8] below. [NAME_21] of £1434 appears to cover more than just communal area for There are two invoices for [NAME_21] £1,434.00 and for [NAME_22] £220.00. This arose when cracks started opening up in the structure of the upper part and one of the flat tenants complained. Despite the brickwork being within the demise of each flat, it was not known whether the whole structure was affected or merely the brickwork to one flat. It is submitted that, in those circumstances, it was proper and reasonable for the Landlord to obtain technical reports, make a protective insurance claim and, finding that the damage was limited to the brickwork in the upper part, charged the cost to [NAME_12]. Copy two invoices attached.

No additional comments. It is accepted that the survey was required because there was a concern that the whole structure might be affected. Therefore the survey was for the benefit of the entire building and should be apportioned accordingly as the Applicant claims.

25

7 flats. Please advise. If no invoices please remove cost from service charge or apportion correctly.

The Tribunal may consider that the correct approach should be to apportion this cost 1/17th and not 1/7th as the costs/reports (stated in the paragraphs above) relate to the structure of the entire building.

[NAME_12] 23 2026.09 This appears to be an error and should be removed as does not appear to be solely attributable to [NAME_12]. I would expect the actual to be circa £800 as it was in 2023.

A respectfully submits that the Comments as before, but, for clarification, total building insurance £6,910.16 apportioned £4,884.07 to the commercial elements and £2,026.09 to [NAME_12]. Submitted that £800 is unsupported by evidence and unrealistic.

No additional comments. See Item 10 above.

26

buildings insurance has not been competitively tendered as R has conceded that R procured through a broker and accepted quotes which included commission backed arrangements to the broker and to R. A submits R did not procure competitively and as the cost is higher than £250 per leaseholder this should be limited to £250.

[NAME_12] 24 469.82 Cannot reconcile cost from invoices provided. Cost for this seems very excessive. Please provide breakdown of the cost. I would expect this cost to be minimal (under £50). If this includes the [NAME_13] admin fee invoice This is partly a charge by [NAME_13] for Section 20 procedures for the car park re-surfacing and fire doors and partly for postage. Denied that the S.20 consultation procedures were erroneous. Attached one invoice.

No additional comments. There is no evidence that the s. 20 notice were issued erroneously or that the process was not conducted correctly. The costs of the are accordingly recoverable.

There is no evidence that the other costs were unreasonably incurred or unreasonable in amount.

However, the apportionment between car park and flats seems to

27

of £426 to issue erroneous s20 Notices to all leaseholders it should be removed.

A submits that following evidence given at Tribunal the charge of £426 (referenced in above paragraphs) is not a sundry expense and should be removed from the service charge as it relates to [NAME_13]’s fees for administration regarding a s20 notice which A was not properly consulted on.

be erroneous insofar as the costs seem to have related to 50% to the car park and 50% to the doors. The costs should therefore be split equally. [ADDRESS] – Cleaning

Item 25 808.88 There is already a charge of £684 plus VAT (£821) in the E&P cleaning invoices. See above – it should be excluded from [NAME_12] as it is a duplicate charge.

For reasons already given in previous years this is submitted to be a fair apportionment of a reasonable cost.

No additional comments. See above.

28

A submits that the apportionment of total cleaning costs should be apportioned 50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th or 14.2857%) and 50% to the car park (apportioned 1/25th or 4%) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out. (Please see also A’s comments in Item 10.)

[NAME_12] 26 1170.00 This should already have been removed as not permitted by leases. Please confirm that this is the case.

A submits that this be removed from the service charge as not recoverable in the leases. R has removed the same in other years.

Agreed that there is no provision in the Lease for this but other [NAME_14] are making voluntary payments as they are unable to pay a whole amount in one particular year.

Already conceded as stated above. See Item 1 above.

29

[NAME_12] & Safety

Item 27 706.80 Cannot reconcile cost from invoices provided. Cost for this seems very excessive. I would expect no more than £150 if attributable to the common parts of [NAME_12]. Please provide breakdown of the cost. If no invoice, please remove from [NAME_12] service charge.

A observes that the rear staircase appears to enter one property on the first floor. R’s approach to the first floor is to treat it as a single lease. Therefore A submits that this cost is incorrectly apportioned as it relates to health & safety & fire safety of the entire property including means of escape (common rear There are two invoices, one for £605 and one for £102 copies of both attached.

It is accepted that, on inspection, a door from what would appear to be a single unit at first- floor level had been formed on to the rear fire escape. However, the lease for the first floor does not contain an included right in the First Schedule (Rights Granted) for use of that rear fire escape. It is submitted that the intention of the fire escapes has always been in regard to the premises on the second and third floors. It seems likely that the absence of a formal right of access from the First Floor unit to the fire escape is either a mistake or the result of a subsequent addition of the fire escape. Either way, the fact that there is now a means of access from the first floor to the fire escape very probably indicates a recognition that such access was desirable, if not necessary, in order for the use of the first floor to be safe.

However, dangerous as it may seem that the first floor flats should not have access over the fire escape from the second floor and despite the fact that is seems that in practice there is access from the first floor to the stairs, the lessee currently has no right of access over those stairs and ought not to therefore to be charged with their maintenance.

Given that access is apparently being gained unlawfully, it would seem that it ought to be possible for the landlord to negotiate terms with the lessee of the first floor to resolve this conundrum. However, until such noegtiations have been

30

staircase and access onto the car park).

A submits that this cost should correctly be apportioned 1/17th and not 1/7th. completed it is not appropriate to apportion this cost across the whole building.

SCHEDULE DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2022 Case Reference: CAM/26UB/LSC/2023/0043 Premises: 271c [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM COST TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) [NAME_12] 28 1603.00 This is excessive. Monthly invoices include £57 + VAT (£821) for car park litter pick. Should be excluded. Cleaning amount for 7 flats in block Observations made in previous years apply to this year. With regard to the first floor snooker hall which has been converted into 5 flats, they have their own entrance hall and staircase which is not part of the common parts for [NAME_12] and they do their own cleaning, lighting etc. The snooker hall lease remains in place, the five flats are sub-leased with no direct contracts with the Respondent.

No additional comments. See Item 1 above.

31

should be no more than £500 pa based on similar properties. £821 has been incorrectly charged (duplicated) as it applies to the car park (see below). Please also confirm whether the amount covers flats below as it appears to cover the same area used in common with the 5 flats below. Should be apportioned correctly.

A submits that the cost be apportioned 50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th to each leaseholder) and 50% to the car

32

park (apportioned 4% or 1/25th) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out.

[NAME_12] 29 1315.00 This is incorrectly charged to [NAME_12] instead of the car park. The amount charged for the refuse collection in the car park is £93. In 2023 the corresponding amounts charged were £372 for the block and £1674 for the car park. Please amend accordingly. I would not expect it to be more than £100.

This has been correctly apportioned. Noted that it is only apportionment that is in issue not the overall charge. Submitted that the Applicant's submission of £100 is unsupported and unrealistic. The different apportionment for 2023 is irrelevant to the circumstances of 2022.

No additional comments. See Item 2 above.

33

[NAME_12] 30 522.00 This amount has been charged incorrectly and should be removed. It is exactly 3 times £174 which is the pest control charge that appears in the accounts for the car park. Assume pests are located in No additional observations to those made for previous years.

No additional comments. See Item 3 above.

34

car park and by those bins.

A submits that as is plain, the source of vermin stems from the bins in the car park.

A submits this cost should be apportioned 4% per the car park schedule and the pest control item be removed from [NAME_12] schedule altogether and placed in the car park schedule.

[NAME_12]

Item 31 360.00 Please confirm what this amount relates to as not apparent from invoices supplied. If no invoice please Attached is the invoice for £360 from [NAME_13] for fire door inspections which was available from the copies provided to the applicant and on the [NAME_11].

No additional comments. This item is no longer apparently in dispute and is accordingly payable.

35

remove.

[NAME_12] 32 852.00 Please confirm what this amount relates to as not apparent from invoices supplied. The accounts state that £252.00 relates to [NAME_12]. If no invoice please remove. The accounts also state that £600 of this relates to the car park and should not therefore be stated as a service charge expense for the Block. As there is no electricity serving the car park this cost should also be removed. Attached is the invoice available on the [NAME_11]. This was apportioned, £600 to [NAME_8] and £252 to [NAME_12].

No additional comments. £600 appears in the accounts as having been apportioned to the [ADDRESS] when it should have been apportioned to the [NAME_8]. Accordingly no proportion of the cost should be paid by the Applicant. [NAME_12] & Lock Repairs 650.00 Please confirm what this amount relates Attached is the invoice available from the [NAME_11]. The previous locks had to be changed after forced entries and new keys issued. There is no reason to dispute the Landlord’s account. This item is payable in full.

36

Item 33 to as not apparent from invoices supplied. If no invoice please remove. I can see an invoice paid to [COMPANY_30] and want to be sure as it was for the door entry system that it has not been double counted in the door entry maintenance above.

No additional comments. [NAME_12] 34 3933.00 Cannot reconcile from invoices provided. Cost for this seems excessive for 7 flats and would expect total to be no more than £700. Please provide breakdown of the cost and to what it relates Invoices attached available from the [NAME_11].

With regard to the gas meter housing cost of £2,950, it is conceded that, on further enquiry and investigation, this does not relate to the maisonettes on the second and third floors and should be removed from liability for those flats.

For the remainder, there is no further comment. Given the position as it now appears only £983.00 is payable.

37

and confirm whether the amount covers flats & [NAME_8] below.

I also noticed an invoice from [COMPANY_25] ([NAME_17]) 30/5/22 totalling £2,950. This simply states “works to gas meter housing”. This seems excessive for the described work and should be removed as it does not to relate to the flats which have no gas supply.

Following the joint site inspection, A submits that the

38

L [NAME_17] t/as Property Maintenance Services invoice of £2,950 [105] be removed from the service charge altogether as it does not relate to [NAME_12] which has no gas supply.

[NAME_12] management fees & other management fees

Item 35 2435.00 144.00 This equates to £214.90 per flat (if 8.3333% is used per the invoicing). This is excessive as the management relates to areas beyond the block such as the [NAME_8] and the car park. I would expect the management fee to be correctly apportioned for [NAME_12]. On this basis I This relates to [NAME_13] Management fees and similar observations are made as for previous years.

No additional comments. See Item 8 above.

39

calculate that the total for [NAME_12] should be no more than £722.12 (£103.16 per flat).

[NAME_12] 36 1494.00 Cannot reconcile cost from invoices provided. Cost for this seems excessive for 7 Attached invoice available from [NAME_11] for £1,984 with £400 apportioned to car park.

The [NAME_21] invoice does not relate to car park works. R submits that, at the time, vagrants were getting into the common parts and causing damage to the There is no reason to doubt the Landlord’s explanation or the apportionment of the cost. This item is payable in full.

40

flats. Please provide breakdown of the cost and to what it relates and confirm whether the amount covers flats & [NAME_8] below.

If no invoices please remove cost from service charge.

The 2022 accounts [112] state that survey fees totalled £1,984 of which £1,494 was apportioned to [NAME_12] and £490 to the car park. One of the invoices relating to this expense is [NAME_21] [106] totalling £1,194. A submits that the water pipes, which resulted in leaks. Repairs by plumbers were short-term resolutions only. [NAME_21] were instructed to find a long-term solution which they did. R contends that the pipes serve the maisonettes on the second and third floors.

41

entire cost is removed from the service charge as it relates to a s20 notice for car park works [163] (not [NAME_12]) and A was not consulted on.

[NAME_12] 37 3289.00 This appears to be an error and should be removed as does not appear to be solely attributable to [NAME_12]. I would expect the actual to be circa £800 as it was in 2023.

A respectfully submits that the buildings insurance has not been competitively tendered as R has conceded The total premium was £9,632.32 apportioned £6,342.97 to [NAME_8] and first floor, £3,289.35 to [NAME_12]. No evidence to support £800 subtracted by Applicant which is unrealistic.

No additional comments. See Item 9 above.

42

that R procured through a broker and accepted quotes which included commission backed arrangements to the broker and to R. A submits R did not procure competitively and as the cost is higher than £250 per leaseholder this should be limited to £250. [NAME_12] / [ADDRESS] – Sundry Expenses

Item 38 1158.00 Shown in both block and car park schedule. Cannot reconcile cost from invoices provided. Cost for this seems very excessive. Please provide breakdown of the cost. I would expect this cost to be The total cost is £1,158.00 and that was all debited to the car park, none to [NAME_12]. It is fees for the consultation and specification/tender fees for resurfacing the cark park and in relation to the boundary wall.

The only reason why the work proceeded no further was because of this dispute. The car park still needs to be resurfaced. The other [NAME_14] of 271 are not objecting, some of whom had agreed to make stage payments to a voluntary reserve fund in order to spread the cost in recognition that the work was (and still is) required. This is a reasonable cost properly attributable the management of the re-surfacing of car park and has been properly attributed as a [ADDRESS] cost. This item is payable in full.

43

minimal (under £50). This is in fact shown in the 2022 accounts as relating to the car park and should therefore be removed. (In 2023 accounts it is shown as a [NAME_12] cost.)

A submits that the charge of £1,158.14, referenced in the accounts [112] is not a car park sundry expense and should be removed from the service charge as the majority relates to [NAME_13]’s fees of £1,032 (£516 + £516) for administration [107,108] regarding a s20 notice [163]

44

which A was not properly consulted on.

Building Insurance (on the separate schedule)

Item 39 5275.00 Assume this is just stated in the overall Buildings Insurance Schedule and does not relate to [NAME_12] and should be disregarded. Please confirm. This is the total income receivable from the [NAME_8] and has nothing to do with expenditure: all as clearly shown at the top part of page 1 of the accounts.

No additional comments.

Building Insurance (on the separate schedule) [ADDRESS] – General Maintenance

Item 40 5000.00 Appears to have been incorrectly applied to the [NAME_12] service charge expenses. Please confirm it will be removed. There appear to be no invoices relating to it. Please advise or remove it also from the Car park service charge cost. The cost appears to This is not insurance and reference to separate schedule is not understood. £5,000 was budgeted for car park repairs, those repairs were carried out but the invoice for the finally agreed cost had not been calculated and received. It was known that it would be more than £5,000 so that amount was provided for in this financial year with the balance to be charged to the following years when finally agreed.

No additional comments. This is a budget item. No money has been spent and it should therefore be removed. It is accepted that there is no power under the lease to create a reserve fund.

45

have been incorrectly applied as it was not spent in 2022 as the works were carried out in 2023. [ADDRESS] – Cleaning

Item 41 809.00 There is already a charge of £684 plus VAT (£821) in the E&P cleaning invoices. See above – it should be excluded from [NAME_12] as it is a duplicate charge.

A submits that the apportionment of total cleaning costs should be apportioned 50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th or 14.2857%) and 50% to the car Apportioned cleaning cost – see Item 28.

No additional comments. This item has been reasonably apportioned and appears to be reasonable in amount.

46

park (apportioned 1/25th or 4%) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out. (Please see also A’s comments in Item 10.)

[ADDRESS] – Refuse collection

Item 42 93.00 Appears to be mixed up with the Block Refuse Collection (see above explanation). Please amend accordingly.

A submits that refuse collection which, as witnessed at the site inspection, includes recurring fly- tipping, should be entirely placed in the car Apportioned cost. See item 29. The Applicant’s % of this cost @ 4% is less than £4.

What was witnessed at the site inspection was fly- tipping from some outside source. At other times it is people moving in or out of top-floor flats which has resulted in beds or redundant fridges/freezers being dumped. See above

47

park schedule and that the correct apportionment is 4% per the car park schedule.

A submits therefore that the amount of £1,315 in Item 29 above should be included in this amount and removed from [NAME_12].

[ADDRESS] – General Maintenance

Item 43 5000.00 Please see above as has been incorrectly charged and stated on the Buildings Insurance schedule. Kindly remove charge.

This is a duplication of Item 40.

No additional comments. It is accepted that this is a duplication and therefore not payable.

[ADDRESS] – Professional Fees

Item 44 490.00 This appears to relate to an invoice of £490.00 from [NAME_22] 12/5/22. It states it relates to a review for new car park lighting. It is not a service charge item and there is no lighting in the car park. Therefore it should be removed.

A submits that this cost is removed from the service charge as the invoice of £490 (referenced above) solely relates to a s20 notice [163] for new “[ADDRESS]” and A was not The Tribunal’s attention will be drawn to the lights and electrical gear at the site inspection. See item 36: This is part of an apportioned fee.

No additional comments. This item was reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.

49

consulted on. [84]

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2023 Case Reference: CAM/26UB/LSC/2023/0043 Premises: 271c [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM COST TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) [NAME_12] 45 1440.00 Appears to be excessive. Monthly invoices include £57 + VAT (£821) for car park litter pick. Should be excluded. Cleaning amount for 7 flats in block should be no more than £500 pa based on similar properties. £821 £1,440 has been debited to [NAME_12]. £821 has been debited to the car park. There is no duplication. The first floor flats have their own entrance and stairs and there is no shared or common area with them. Similar submissions apply as have been made for previous years.

No additional comments. See Item 1 above.

50

has been incorrectly charged (duplicated) as it applies to the car park (see below). Please also confirm whether the amount covers flats below as it appears to cover the same area used in common with the 5 flats below.

A submits that the cost be apportioned 50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th to each leaseholder) and 50% to the car park (apportioned 4% or 1/25th) as invoices show car park cleaning and

51

litter pick being carried out.

[NAME_12] 46 348.00 This amount has been charged twice (£348 for block & £348 for car park). The £348 for upstairs [NAME_12] should be removed. Assume pests are located in car park and by those bins.

A submits that as is plain, the source of vermin stems from the bins in the car park. A submits this cost should be apportioned 4% per the car park schedule and the pest control item be removed from [NAME_12] schedule This is 2 apportioned charges. Pest control is necessary as for previous years.

No additional comments. See Item 3 above. All pest control costs should be allocated to the Car park.

52

altogether and placed in the car park schedule.

[NAME_12] 47 2746.00 Cannot reconcile from invoices provided. Cost for this seems excessive for 7 flats and would expect total to be no more than £1000. Please provide breakdown of the cost and to what it relates and confirm whether the amount covers flats & [NAME_8] below.

I also noticed 3 separate invoices to [COMPANY_26], one for investigation into a leak and two others Invoices attached available from [NAME_11]. No supporting evidence for Applicant’s submission of £1,000.

No additional comments.

Each of these invoices has a different invoice reference and number, a different date and a different job description. On 6th April an emergency repair was carried out, on 26th April the affected section of pipe was replaced as a long term resolution. There is full information to make it quite clear that these are not for the same repair.

We agree with the Applicant that this seems to be a building cost not a flat specific cost and that it should be apportioned accordingly. In the absence of any evidence that this cost is solely attributable to the flats its apportionment to them is not reasonable.

53

relating to what appears to be the same repair. Do these relate to [NAME_12] or were they simply stored in the same invoice file?

A accepts that the 3 invoices for pipe repairs and subsequent damage (for £150, £570 & £576) totalling £1,296 are not in the bundle but are referred to in the above paragraphs (Item 47).

A submits that the total cost of these invoices (£1,296) should be apportioned 1/17th and not 1/7th as the repair work required was

54

due to damage caused by leaking pipes which serve the entire building.

[NAME_12] risk & health & safety costs

Item 48 617.00 Please provide breakdown and confirm whether the amount covers flats & [NAME_8] below. I would expect this cost to be £350 for the 7 flats as per the 2023 budget.

A observes that the rear staircase appears to enter one property on the first floor. R’s approach to the first floor is to treat it as a single lease. Therefore A submits that this cost is incorrectly This relates to the [NAME_23]. inspection for the common parts of [NAME_12]. The [NAME_8] and first floor premises are responsible for their own [NAME_23] matters. No supporting evidence for Applicant’s submission of £350.

See previous reference to the first-floor premises having no included rights to use that fire escape at rear from which it would appear that one door has been installed apparently serving one of the converted flats on the first floor. See Item 27 above.

55

apportioned as it relates to health & safety & fire safety of the entire property including means of escape (common rear staircase and access onto the car park).

A submits that this cost should correctly be apportioned 1/17th and not 1/7th.

Building Insurance (on the separate schedule)

Item 49 1042.00 There is already a separate charge of £822 in Block 71 schedule for insurance - buildings. This £1,042.00 appears to be an error and should be removed from the service charge. The building insurance costs are shown on page 4 of the accounts. The figure of £1,042 is the cost subject to accountant’s adjustments for pre- payments and accruals. The pre-payments adjustment is shown on page 8, note 2.

No additional comments. The Applicant now accepts that this sum is payable.

56

A does not dispute this adjustment following R’s explanation.

[ADDRESS] – Cleaning

Item 50 821.00 There is already a charge of £684 plus VAT (£821) in the E&P cleaning invoices. See above – it should be excluded from [NAME_12] as it is a duplicate charge.

A submits that the apportionment of total cleaning costs should be apportioned 50% to the Block (apportioned 1/7th or 14.2857%) and 50% to the car park (apportioned See Item 45 and observations about cleaning in previous years.

No additional comments. See Item 16 above.

57

1/25th or 4%) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out.

(Please see also A’s comments in Item 10.)

[ADDRESS] – Refuse collection

Item 51 1674.00 Please provide breakdown of this amount as unable to reconcile with invoices provided. Would expect this to be around £500 per original budget. Appears to be duplication between work invoiced by [NAME_24] and [NAME_27].

A submits that refuse collection £372 was charged to [NAME_12]. £1,674 was charged to car park.

£504 was the car park budget, £400 was the [NAME_12] budget.

The actual cost depends on the amount of fly- tipping and rubbish removal which has to be undertaken as explained for previous years.

No additional comments. The Respondent’s apportionment of this item is reasonable. The sum claimed is payable.

58

which, as witnessed at the site inspection, includes recurring fly- tipping, should be entirely placed in the car park schedule and that the correct apportionment is 4% per the car park schedule.

A submits therefore that the amount of £372 stated by R in the above paragraph in should be included in this amount and removed from [NAME_12].

[ADDRESS] – Pest control

Item 52 348.00 This amount has been charged twice (£348 for block & £348 for car park). See Item 46.

59

The £348 for upstairs [NAME_12] should be removed. Assume pests are located in car park and by those bins.

A submits that as is plain, the source of vermin stems from the bins in the car park. A submits all pest control costs should be apportioned 4% per the car park schedule and the pest control item be removed from [NAME_12] schedule altogether and placed in the car park schedule.

A submits that Item 46 should be included here

60

and apportioned 4%.

[ADDRESS] – General Maintenance

Item 53 12044.00 Not able to reconcile with invoices provided. Please provide breakdown.

A directs the Tribunal’s attention to the actual spend detailed in the [ADDRESS] [115] £12,044 and £1,108. A submits that these works were not consulted on properly by R and A’s contribution should be limited to £250.

The Applicant is aware that re-surfacing of the car park has been subject to statutory consultation and tender procedures for some years. Other [NAME_14] accept that have asked to pay into a (voluntary) reserve fund to spread the cost (some of them are on benefits) but the Applicant objected and so all previously collected reserves have been credited to the [NAME_14] (see page 7 of the accounts). The car park pot holes were hazards and had to be filled which the Tribunal will see on their inspection. This cost was therefore part of the consulted costs for necessary temporary repairs pending the outcome of this case and then new consultation procedures for the car park to be re- surfaced to a long term standard. Invoices attached.

R did consult. As a result of the Applicant's reply to the consultation process, a less extensive and cheaper option was taken to provide car park safety from dangerous pot holes for the time being until such time as this dispute has been resolved and further proposals can be brought forward for the proper resurfacing of the car park as and when further pot holes start to develop (one small one noted at the time of the Tribunal's inspection). R submits that that is a proper and reasonable action to take in response to consultation replies. We agree that the Respondent’s adoption of a lower cost alternative in response to the responses which it received to its consultation was reasonable. It was clear to us from our inspection that the costs were reasonably incurred and there is no evidence that they were not reasonable in amount. The Applicant’s challenge is based upon the claim that the Respondent failed to consult in relation to this specific proposal. That is not a proper objection this scheme was adopted as a result of the property operation of the consultation process.

[ADDRESS] – [ADDRESS] Maintenance

Item 54 1108.00 This appears to be a separate charge not included in £12044 above. Please provide breakdown / reason for separate charge. If none available then should be removed.

A directs the Tribunal’s attention to the actual spend detailed in the [ADDRESS] [115] £12,044 and £1,108. A submits that these works were not consulted on properly by R and A’s contribution should be limited to £250. Invoices available from [NAME_11].

No additional comments. These are separate charges not related to the item above and are payable.

[ADDRESS] – Sundries

Item 55 383.00 This appears to be excessive. Please provide invoices and breakdown. Should be no more than £50 per the budget. Invoices attached available from [NAME_11].

No additional comments. This item is payable. Management Fees

Item 56 2838.00 This equates to £236.50 per flat (if 8.3333% is used per the invoicing). This is excessive as the management relates to areas beyond the block such as the [NAME_8] and the car park. I would expect the management fee to be correctly apportioned for [NAME_12]. On this basis I calculate that the total for [NAME_12] should be no more than See observations on management fees for previous years.

No additional comments. See Item 8 above.

63

£794.64 (£113.52 per flat).

SCHEDULE DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2024 – BUDGET - A submits that the same apportionments as above should be applied below. Case Reference: CAM/26UB/LSC/2023/0043 Premises: 271c [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

64

ITEM COST TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) [NAME_12] 57 1610.22 Appears to be excessive. Cleaning amount for 7 flats in block should be no more than £500 pa based on similar properties. Please also confirm whether the amount covers flats below as it appears to cover the same area used in common with the 5 flats below.

A submits that the cost be apportioned 50% to the block (apportioned 1/7th to each leaseholder) and Denied that it is excessive. Same observations as for previous years. No supporting evidence for Applicant’s submission of £500.

No additional comments. See Item 1 above.

65

50% to the car park (apportioned 4% or 1/25th) as invoices show car park cleaning and litter pick being carried out.

[NAME_12] 58

500.00 Should be removed. Assume pests are located in car park and by those bins. Not a [NAME_12] item. Car park item.

A submits this cost should be apportioned 4% per the car park schedule and the pest control There are pest control measures necessary in the common parts to the flats as well as the car park.

No additional comments. See Item 3 above.

66

item be removed from [NAME_12] schedule altogether and placed in the car park schedule.

[NAME_12] 59 3500.00 Cost for this seems excessive for 7 flats and would expect total to be no more than £1000. Please provide breakdown of the budgeted cost and to what it relates and confirm whether the amount covers flats & [NAME_8] below.

A submits that the budgeted items should be consulted upon or limited to £250 per leaseholder No supporting evidence for Applicant’s submission of £1,000. Submitted that £3,500 is reasonable as a budget.

No additional comments. This is reasonable as a budget figure.

67

based on challenges in previous years.

A submits total budget is no more than £1,750 (£250 x 7 leaseholders).

[NAME_12] 60 1500.00 Given a lot of invoices have appeared in preceding years hard to justify why 1500.00 is budgeted. Should be no more than £300.

A submits that due to large one-off expenses in previous years and the site inspection revealing limited apparatus this should be limited to a budget of £300. This building has a history of vandal damage and vermin damaged. It seems that the principle of a budget is agreed, it is merely the amount for which the Applicant offers no supporting evidence.

No additional comments. This is reasonable as a budget figure. The previous years of account demonstrate a history of electrical faults.

68

R’s comments of vermin damage supports A’s previous submissions that majority of repair work should be part of car park schedule and apportioned accordingly (4%).

[NAME_12] 61 500.00 This is excessive and should be no more than £100.

As noted at the Hearing and in challenges above, A submits £500 for sundries relating to the Block only is excessive and should be limited to £100.

Submitted that £500 is reasonable based on past experience.

69

Insurance – Buildings

Item 62 4393.32 This appears to be an error and should be removed from the service charge budget. I expect insurance to be no more than circa £800 apportioned for [NAME_12].

A respectfully submits that the buildings insurance has not been competitively tendered as R has conceded that R procured through a broker and accepted quotes which included commission backed arrangements to the broker and to R.

Submitted that the Applicant has misunderstood the past accounts over insurance costs and £800 for 7 flats is unrealistic.

No additional comments.

70

A submits R did not procure competitively and as the cost is higher than £250 per leaseholder this should be limited to £250.

[ADDRESS] – Electrical Repairs

Item 63 1500.00 To our knowledge there are no electrical items in the car park. Please explain or remove budgeted charge.

A submits that the joint site inspection provided limited evidence to support this budgeted charge.

A submits that this should be removed from The electrical apparatus will be shown to the Tribunal on their inspection.

No additional comments.

This is reasonable as a budget figure.

71

the service charge altogether.

[ADDRESS] – Drains, Gutters & Pipes

Item 64 1500.00 Please provide breakdown of this amount. Would expect this to be no £500 budget.

A submits that previous years actual spend has been less than £500 and therefore budget should be capped at £500.

There is no breakdown. The budget is based on past experience of blocked drains, gutters and downpipe damage and routine maintenance.

No additional comments. This is reasonable as a budget figure. [ADDRESS] – General Maintenance

Item 65 5000.00 Please provide breakdown. Significant amounts already spent in 2023. Please explain reason for charge or remove.

A submits that R could not provide any Until the car park is fully re-surfaced, there will be frequent pot holes and other repairs to be anticipated. Occasional vandal damage is a problem. Gates have been proposed to which the Applicant objected.

72

evidence of this as an ongoing issue and that the one-off repairs do not constitute temporary repairs.

R’s comments regarding proposed gates and A’s alleged objection are unfounded and R was unable to provide any evidence of this to the Tribunal.

A respectfully submits that the general maintenance budget is limited to £1,500.

[ADDRESS] – Legal Fees

Item 66 500.00 This should be removed as not part of service charge.

Agreed to remove.

Conceded as noted above. It is agreed that this item should be removed.

73

A notes R’s agreement to remove this from the budget.

[ADDRESS] – Sundry Item 67 200.00 This appears to be excessive. Expect to see no more than £100.

As noted at the Hearing, A submits £200 for sundries is excessive (given already budgeted for in [NAME_12]) and should be limited to £100.

Submitted that this is reasonable.

No additional comments. This is reasonable as a budget figure. Management Fees

Item 68 3194.88 This equates to £266.24 per flat (if 8.3333% is used per the invoicing). This is excessive as the management relates to areas beyond the block such as the [NAME_8] that this is reasonable. The Tribunal is referred to observations for previous years re: management fees.

No additional comments. See Item 8 above.

74

the car park. I would expect the management fee to be correctly apportioned for [NAME_12]. On this basis I calculate that the total for [NAME_12] should be no more than £800. (£114.28 per flat).

As noted at the hearing this is higher than £250 per leaseholder and A submits that this should be consulted upon to ensure fairness and value for money.

Additionally, A submits that as a large part of the management

75

work relates to the car park, the management fee should correctly be apportioned 50% to the car park (apportioned 4% per flat) and 50% to the flats & [NAME_8] (apportioned 8.3333%).