First-tier Tribunal Determines Service Charge Liability

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL [NAME_1] CHAMBER ([NAME_1]) Case reference : LON/00AD/LSC/2025/0898 [NAME_1] : 134[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME_4] Service Charge Team Lead Respondent : [redacted] : In person Type of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge Dutton Mr D [NAME_6] Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] on 15 April 2026 Date of decision : 1 May 2026

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the sum of £3,161.12 is payable by the Respondent in respect of the service charges for the years 2020 to May 2024 for the reasons set out below and on the attached [NAME_7] (2) No application under s20C was made. (3) Since the tribunal has no jurisdiction over county court costs and fees, this matter should now be referred back to the County Court The application 1. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to the amount of service charges payable by the Respondent in respect of the service charge years covering the period 1 January 2020 to 24 May 2024.

2. Proceedings were originally issued in the Civil National Business Centre under claim no. L9QZ99V2. The claim was transferred to this tribunal, and directions were issued on 23 July 2025, initially listing this matter for a hearing on 12 December 2025. However, that hearing could not take place due to, it would appear, failings on both sides, and the case was relisted for hearing on 15 April 2026, when it came before us for determination. The hearing 3. The Applicant was represented by [NAME_4], accompanied by [NAME_9] at the hearing and the Respondent appeared in person. The background 4. The [NAME_1], which is the subject of this application, is a second floor flat in a purpose-built block comprising three rooms, a kitchen and bathroom and parking space. The flat is situated in an “Estate” comprising properties known as 124/[ADDRESS] and 87/93 [NAME_10] and the Respondent is required to pay 1/36 of the service charges as set out in a lease dated 1 June 1993 made between [COMPANY_11] (1) and [NAME_13] and [NAME_31] (2) ((the Lease)

5. 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.

3 6. The Respondent holds a long lease of the [NAME_1] which requires the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge. The specific provisions of the Lease and will be referred to below, where appropriate. The issues 7. At the start of the hearing the parties identified the relevant issues for determination. They were the payability and/or reasonableness of service charges for the years in dispute: • [NAME_14], grounds contracts, refuse bins, repairs, estate [NAME_14], door entry, lighting repairs, management fees and the sinking fund and the apportionment of same on an Estate/Block basis.

8. We were provided with a bundle running to some 754 pages, but we are pleased to say that as a result of a pragmatic approach adopted by both [NAME_4] and [NAME_5] the issued became confined and capable of resolution to, it would seem, both sides satisfaction.

9. Much of the problem stemmed from the wrongful apportionment of service charges on an estate wide basis. [NAME_4] accepted that the Applicant had been accounting for service charges on the basis of some 100+ flats forming the Estate, in disregard of the definition as to Estate contained in [NAME_5]’s lease. [NAME_4] accepted that this would mean that [NAME_5] had been incorrectly charged for the period in dispute where Estate charges had been inappropriately claimed.

10. This, it appears, was an issue [NAME_5] had been attempting to resolve with the Applicant for some considerable time. There was evidence in the bundle before us of attempts to resolve matters with the Applicant, but these had, in the main proved fruitless. This issue on Estate apportionment having been accepted by [NAME_4], and the sums offered by [NAME_15] being agreed it opened the door to much compromise on both sides for which they deserve plaudits.

11. Having heard evidence and submissions from the parties and considered all of the documents provided, the tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as follows.

12. On the attached [NAME_8] Schedule we have recorded our findings and the agreements reached between the parties. Going through the [NAME_8] Schedule we set out the findings we have made, based on the evidence before us and or the agreement of the parties. (a) [NAME_14] contract for the first year was waived. Thereafter there is a complaint as to the standard and the attendances. Apparently, the [NAME_14] is an ‘in house’ service and we were shown

4 attendance sheets, which in truth provided little information. We were told that the team mop/hoover the common arts, of which there are two and the Estate is inspected every month by the Estate Team Manager and once a quarter an Estate Inspection report is produced, copies of which were included in the bundle. It appears that the report inspection is concluded in 30 minutes. It would seem that this charge is tainted by the Estate error and as agreed with [NAME_4], the sum offered by [NAME_5] is accepted by the Applicant. [see page 170 of the bundle] (b) Ad hoc grounds works were not disputed by [NAME_5] and accordingly where that item appears in the Schedule the amount sought has been accepted as due. (c) [NAME_14] ([COMPANY_14]). As [NAME_4] agreed where [NAME_5] has made an offer for Estate costs, they would be accepted. This obviated the need for the Applicant to go back through the accounts for these years in dispute and to produce fresh accounts to reflect the true nature of [NAME_5]’s Estate. (d) As to Grounds contract [NAME_5] accepted the production of invoices from the contractor, something he had been seeking for some time, although made no offer. The costs were based on a long-term agreement for which there had been consultation, it appears that [COMPANY_16] undertook the garden contract for all the Applicant’s properties and did not differentiate between blocks or Estate. The charge was challenged in any event by [NAME_5] who offered £20 which we consider reasonable in all the circumstances (e) Refuse bin charges. Again, these appear to be the subject of a wider Estate charge than is provided for in [NAME_5]’s lease. He offered £5. We were told that from [NAME_5]’s point of view there had been no monitoring and although there were surveillance cameras these did not seem to be reviewed to establish the identity of any culprit as apparently the Applicant was not entitled to view the recordings without police approval. However, the Applicant cannot really be held responsible for the actions of residents on the estate. Doing the best we can we conclude that a charge of £5 pretty nearly reflect a third charge if one accepts that there are circa 100 units on the total estate and [NAME_5] block would seem to comprise approximately 1/3rd There is no charge for the emptying as this is carried out by the Council and bulk refuse is a separate matter. (f) Bulk waste was £9.95 in the year to March 2022. [NAME_5] offered £3. It is unclear to us whether these was confined to [NAME_5]’s Estate or the wider Estate. We consider on this minor point a compromise at £5 is reasonable. (g) Repairs is another element which has fallen foul of the Estate accounting provisions. The schedule produced at page 223 of the bundle shows a number of repairs, not all relating to [NAME_5]’s estate. [NAME_5] was content with a £5 reduction to reflect the Estate issue. (h) The door entry repairs were not disputed at the hearing and nor were the electricity charges.

5 (i) On the question of emergency lighting and the service contract on production of invoices confirming that these charges were specific to [NAME_5]’s estate he withdrew and objection. (j) [NAME_17] was a charge withdrawn by the Applicants for the period in dispute. (k) There was no dispute to the costs of insurance. (l) On the question of management fees, we heard from [NAME_4] how these were calculated. There was a matrix which incorporated such elements as the inspections conducted, the accounting and preparation of budgets, the recovery of charges, rent accounting and handling enquiries from tenants and leaseholders. The charges were compared with others in the ‘market’. [NAME_5] had no comparable evidence to put forward although accepted that there was some management. He was the landlord of another [NAME_1] and thought the management charges were higher but could not provide any compelling evidence to support this proposition. Using our own knowledge and experience we find that a charge of £180.48 per annum and the subsequent annual charges were reasonable and should be paid. (m) The penultimate issue was the sinking/reserve fund contribution which were set at £506.40 for each year. We were told that the Capital Delivery and Asset Management team set the amount each year. We understood the sum held in the sinking fund to be just under £170,000 at January this year. This is a fairly modern development and although we support the provisions of a sinking fund, in the absence of any explanation for the amount sought and the consistency of the sum claimed, we find that the sums being collected to be too high. We therefore accept the proposal of the amounts shown in the [NAME_8] Schedule as being a reasonable contribution from [NAME_5]. This may change as time goes by. (n) Finally for the period to May 2024 utilising [NAME_5] schedule at page 170 onwards it would seem that the total sums claimed were £303.25. [NAME_5] offers £170.51 in effect on account, which we will allow but this may be the subject of review when final accounts on a proper basis are produced.

13. The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of service charges by [NAME_5] is ££3,161.12. [NAME_5] has not made any contribution to the service charge account during the period of this dispute, which is a pity as there are items he accepted were due and owing. However, the problems with the accounts clearly need resolving and in confining our decision to these years, and agreements reached between the parties on so many issues we hope that going forward there will be no problems which require them to come back before us in the future.

14. The tribunal has no jurisdiction over county court costs. This matter should now be returned to the County Court from whence it came.

6

Name: Judge Dutton Date: 1 May 2026

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) ([NAME_1] Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. 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. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the [NAME_1] and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 31 March 2021

Case Reference: LON/00AD/LSC/2025/0890

Premises:134[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM FULL YEAR COST

AMOUNT DISPUTED TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) Ad-Hoc Grounds Work £0.70

£0.35 [NAME_3]’s own comments (2020/21 comparison) show “top up of grit and silt around estate.” Accept 50% as reasonable. Require: work order, completion evidence There are grit bins around the estate. Invoice AH001 shows the costs for Grit bags across a number of estates. [NAME_10] adjoins [ADDRESS] and has taken 1/9th of the costs. No longer in dispute 70p allowed [NAME_14] ([COMPANY_14]) £73.26

£53.26 [NAME_3] admits (2020/21 comparison): “In-house teams providing [NAME_14] services such as litter picking, sweeping etc around estate. Costs reduced due to missed visits.” Service NOT provided to reasonable standard. Original complaint 11/03/20 documented failures. Independent corroboration from [NAME_18]. Require: [NAME_14] logs, evidence of The [NAME_14] [COMPANY_14] heading is for our in house team delivering external [NAME_14] services to the estate so there are no invoices for these services as this is an apportioned rate for the salaries of the staff delivering the services. Unfortunately our current system only dates back to June 2020 but we have provided the attendance records for this period. We have also provided Sum allowed £20 as per decision 12(c)

actual service delivery. copies of the estate inspections for this financial year which don’t highlight any external [NAME_14] deficiencies, only bulk waste left in and around bin areas which has had to be cleared. Grounds Contract £65.60

£45.20 [NAME_3] admits (2020/21): “Costs slightly higher than budgeted. Graffiti removal and fixing of tiles.” Service DEPLORABLE (photo evidence 11/03/20). No pruning, tree stumps damaging brickwork, no replanting in 25+ years. The routine grounds maintenance is carried out on a fortnightly basis and this covers all litter picking, grass cutting, shrub bed maintenance and the trim back of hedges and bushes on a cyclical basis. The routine grounds maintenance contract doesn’t cover tree works as these works are covered under separate tree works headings. We have attached the contractor invoices for the period in question. Amount allowed £20 Playground Equipment Repairs £1.36

£0.00 No objection in principle No objections to charge £1.36 allowed Playground Equipment Service Contract £7.69 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Servicing costs of playground equipment.” Accept. No objections to charge £7.69 allowed Refuse Bin Collection £16.97 £11.97 [NAME_3] admits: “Fly tipping and waste removal from around Various removals of dumped items from bin areas. Sum offered Respondent is acceptable , see decision

the estate and bin stores.” Bins continuously overflow (photo evidence). Service inadequate. Require: collection logs, contractor invoices. Evidence shown in estate inspection reports. Repairs £18.88 £13.88 [NAME_3] admits: “Various repairs around estate including bollards, fencing, steps & pathways.” Yet numerous repairs from March 2020 complaint remain outstanding. Require: complete repair log, work orders, before/after photos We have included a schedule of repairs undertaken with the associated costs. £13.88 allowed [NAME_19] £0.53 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Communal aerial repair due to loss of signal.” Accept. No objections to charge 53p allowed Water Rates £1.03 £0.00 Accept. No objections to charge £1.03 Fire Risk Assessments £5.16 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Costs less with budgeted. Water safety risk assessment in line with Health & Safety Legislation.” Accept H&S requirement. No objections to charge £5.16 allowed Health & Safety Inspections £2.81 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Repair costs lower than budgeted minor exterior lighting No objections to charge £2.81 allowed

repairs.” Accept. Repairs £6.15 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Repair costs lower than budgeted minor exterior lighting repairs. Cost in line with budget.” Accept but note numerous repairs remain outstanding from March 2020 complaint. No objections to charge £6.15 allowed [NAME_14] ([COMPANY_14]) £77.31 £57.31 [NAME_3] admits: “Costs reduced due to missed visits.” [NAME_18] email confirms [NAME_14] of communal hallways despite multiple reports. Photo evidence 27/02/20 shows filthy hallway after claimed [NAME_14]. Require: [NAME_14] logs, contractor signatures, before /after photos etc. The [NAME_14] [COMPANY_14] heading is for our in house team delivering [NAME_14] service so there are no invoices for these services as this is an apportioned rate for the salaries of the staff delivering the services. Unfortunately our current system only dates back to September 2020 but we have provided the attendance records for this period. We have also provided copies of the estate inspections for this financial year which don’t highlight any [NAME_14] deficiencies. £20 offered and accepted by the Applicant [NAME_14] £0.00 £0.00 No charge this year but [NAME_14] failures documented. No objections to charge

Door Entry Repairs £11.14 £8.14 [NAME_3] admits: “Repair to buzzer not working costs higher than budgeted.” Broken car park entry door reported 11/03/20 (photo evidence). Require: evidence this specific repair was completed in year with appropriate logs of work inventory to confirm. The repair was for a broken lock to the door. Our system runs a valuation each month for repairs undertaken by our contractor, and they submit an invoice for completed repairs. The attached invoice DE001 shows the total claim and [NAME_20] 32460 shows a breakdown of the valuation and copy of the order. £11.14 allowed [COMPANY_25] Service Contract £0.00 £0.00 No charge but door issues documented in complaint. No objections to charge

Electricity £34.61 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “No costs incurred leaving surplus. Electricity costs slightly higher than budgeted Costs higher than budgeted.” Accept utility charge No objections to charge £34.61 allowed Emergency Lighting Repairs Contract £60.00 £40.00 [NAME_3] admits: “No costs incurred leaving surplus repairs to access box.” Missing light cover at entrance (photo evidence). Tunnel light not working. Require: evidence of actual repairs completed with During this period, the emergency lighting contract is an all inclusive contract whereby a contract cost was agreed to cover all emergency light repairs for the year. The costs this element were £24 per month. The contractor invoices for the £60.00 allowed on Respondent’s acceptance of same

engineer cost logs. service and repairs elements on separate invoices so we have included these under separate headings. In addition to the £24 charge per month there was an additional charge to re- secure the fire box which is shown against invoice [NAME_21] which shows the total claim and [NAME_20] 32003 shows a breakdown of the valuation and copy of the order. Emergency Lighting Servicing Contract £56.67 £26.57 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost in line with budget.” Require: service logs showing dates and works completed Emergency Light Service occurs on a monthly basis. We have provided the test certificates from our contractor for this financial year. £56.67 Allowed in full based on invoices produced and Respondent’s acceptance of same [NAME_19] £0.00 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “No costs incurred leaving surplus.” No objections to charge

[NAME_17] -£1.37 -£1.37 [NAME_3] admits: “[NAME_17] missed visits and refund received from last year.” This proves service NOT delivered yet still shows in accounts. Service NEVER provided - no resident has ever seen window cleaner (reported The credit was as a result of previously missed [NAME_17] visit. It must be noted that the [NAME_17] is only for the communal parts and doesn’t include flat windows. [NAME_17] charges are waived by the applicant

11/03/20). Credit noted but why charge at all if service not delivered? [NAME_26] £105.52 £20.52 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost in line with budget.” Challenge total cost allocation. Require: insurance policy documents (Section 30A LTA 1985), premium breakdown, apportionment methodology. [NAME_3] insure on a block insurance policy which covers all properties under their ownership or management. The insurance policy is re- tendered each year to ensure that we are receiving the best market rates. Our insurers have agreed a rate based on the [NAME_1] type and the number of bedrooms. The rate for a 2 bedroom flat in 20-21 was £105.52 per year. The [NAME_1] rates are attached shown as [NAME_26]. Accepted by Respondent. £105.52 reasonable and allowed Management Fee £180.48 £130.48 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost in line with budget.” STRONGLY CHALLENGE. Original complaint sent 11/03/20 received NO response despite 10-day commitment. Follow-up 22/04/20 after 40+ days - still no substantive response. Systematic management failures. Require: Our management fees cover the costs of managing the common parts of the estate and block. The charge also covers the costs of but not limited to :- Preparing of budget estimates including the printing and postage costs of such. Collecting of service charges See decision the tribunal does not consider the annual charge for management to be unreasonable and is allowed for each year

breakdown of management activities justifying fee throughout the year and dealing with any arrears recovery to ensure sufficient funds are available to deliver services to the estate and block. Accounting for service charge expenditure at the end of the financial year. Inspections of the [NAME_1] by our neighbourhood managers and repairs teams. Providing 24 hours support via our customer service hub. We are sorry you feel your complaint wasn’t resolved but as the evidence provided suggests we have still delivered services and managed the common parts of the estate. Sinking Fund Contribution £506.40 £256.40 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost in line with budget.” CHALLENGE. Lease requires painting/overha ul every 7 years - NOT DONE. No major works done in the time frame despite contributions. Require: fund balance, usage history, explanation for failure to perform We are unable to locate a clause within the lease requires the painting or overhaul every 7 years. The sinking fund is collected to ensure that there are sufficient funds in place for works which fall outside of the normal accounting year occurring only once during the It appears that there is just short of £170,000 in the reserve fundas at the beginning of 2026. The tribunal consider the sum offered by the Respondent to be a reasonable contribution for the years in question. See decision

mandated works. unexpired term of the lease or at intervals of more than one year. The balance of the sinking fund as at the end of January 2026 is £168,986.26.

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 31 March 2022

Case Reference: LON/00AD/LSC/2025/0890

Premises:134[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM FULL YEAR COST

AMOUNT DISPUTED TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) Bulk Waste Removal £9.95 £6.95 Service inadequate. Refuse areas continuously overflowing (photographic evidence dated 11/03/20). Attracts rodents and foxes. No evidence of adequate service delivery. Require: contractor invoices, service logs, photographic evidence of collections. On review we can see that we have two invoices for £73.20 each totalling £146.40 that should have been for removal of items within blocks in [NAME_10]. Your proportion of these charges was £1.61, we will credit this back to your service charge account. £5 allowed see para 12(f) [NAME_14] ([COMPANY_14] £74.65 £59.65

Service NOT provided to reasonable standard. Original complaint 11/03/20 documented substandard [NAME_14] with photographs. Independent corroboration from [NAME_18] (29/09/21) confirms [NAME_14] to communal hallways despite multiple reports to [NAME_3]. Require: [NAME_14] logs with contractor signatures, before/after photos, evidence of scheduled visits. The [NAME_14] [COMPANY_14] heading is for our in house team delivering external [NAME_14] services to the estate so there are no invoices for these services as this is an apportioned rate for the salaries of the staff delivering the services. We have provided the attendance records for this period. We have £15.00 allowed as agreed with Applicant

also provided copies of the estate inspections for this financial year which don’t highlight any external [NAME_14] deficiencies, only bulk waste left in and around bin areas which has had to be cleared. Grounds Contract £41.09 £31.09 Service DEPLORABLE. Contractors make no attempt at pruning/shaping. Leave tree stumps causing damage to brickwork/paving (photos 11/03/20). No clearing of leaves/weeds/litter. NO new planting in 25+ years despite [NAME_3] claiming 2 trees planted for each removed. Gardeners observed sitting in vehicle without performing work. Require: contractor name, contract award date, service frequency, invoices with dates, photographic evidence of completed work, explanation for zero replanting. The routine grounds maintenance is carried out on a fortnightly basis and this covers all litter picking, grass cutting, shrub bed maintenance and the trim back of hedges and bushes on a cyclical basis. The routine grounds maintenance contract would only cover doesn’t cover new planting these costs would be incurred as an additional charge as and when identified. We have attached the contractor invoices for the period in question. £15.00 allowed as per previous year but reflecting reduce overall cost Grounds Maintenance Tree Works £3.56 £3.56 No evidence of tree maintenance. Only evidence is tree removal leaving stumps (photos). Require: specification of works, contractor The costs were to remove a snapped tree following storm Eunice. We have attached the associated invoice shown £3.56 allowed De minimis

invoices, before/after photos, explanation of what “maintenance” was performed on invoice TW001. We don’t have any before or after photographs as these were emergency works. Playground Equipment Repairs £5.60 £0.00 No objection in principle but require evidence work was necessary and completed. Require: inspection reports identifying need, work orders, completion certificates, invoices No objections to charge £5.60 allowed Playground Equipment Service Contract £6.37 £0.00 No objection in principle but require evidence of regular servicing. Require: service contract terms, service logs, inspection reports, contractor invoices. No objections to charge £6.37 allowed [NAME_14] £260.01 £210.01 Service NOT provided. Blocks not cleaned regularly or to acceptable standard despite claims of regular service. [NAME_3] employee attended 27/02/20 for claimed 15 minutes only - photo evidence shows hallway outside 134A remained filthy after departure. No [NAME_14] register in blocks for verification. Independent corroboration: [NAME_18] email 29/09/21 confirms [NAME_14] of communal hallways, reported to [NAME_3] on numerous occasions. Require: contractor name/contract, [NAME_14] schedule, The [NAME_14] [COMPANY_14] heading is for our in house team delivering [NAME_14] services to the block so there are no invoices for these services as this is an apportioned rate for the salaries of the staff delivering the services. We have provided the attendance records for this period. We have also provided copies of the estate inspections for this financial year which don’t highlight any external £50.00 allowed see decision on apportionment of Estate costs

completion logs with signatures, photographic evidence, explanation for absence of [NAME_14] register. [NAME_14] deficiencies, only bulk waste left in and around bin areas which has had to be cleared. Electricity £151.24 £0.00 Accept in principle but challenge total cost allocation methodology. Various lights throughout blocks need bulb replacement (reported 11/03/20). Lack of lighting creates security/safety concerns. Request: detailed breakdown of electricity usage vs. lighting maintenance costs, explanation of cost apportionment between properties. No objections to charge. The electricity heading only covers the electricity usage for each block. Any repairs to lighting or re- lamping of any light fittings would be covered under the repairs heading. £151.24 allowed Emergency Lighting Repairs Contract £34.79 £24.79 Missing light cover at Block 124-128B entrance (photo evidence 11/03/20) - rain exposure risks light failure. This is a safety hazard. No evidence repair/replacement completed. Require: specification of what “emergency lighting” covers, evidence this specific hazard addressed, work completion certificates, before/after photos. During this period, the emergency lighting contract is an all inclusive contract whereby a contract cost was agreed to cover all emergency light repairs for the year. The charges moved from individual cores to the total block costs in line with the lease. The costs this element were £102 per month for the total block. The contractor invoices for the service and repairs £34.79 allowed

elements on separate invoices so we have included these under separate headings. There were some in year adjustments which meant the total cost was £1113.36 with your proportion being £34.79. Emergency Lighting £61.88 £31.88 Accept servicing required but require proof of service. Tunnel light between [NAME_10] not working (photo evidence 11/03/20) - safety hazard with youths congregating. Require: service contract terms, service logs showing dates/works completed, evidence tunnel light repaired. Emergency Light Servicing occurs on a monthly basis. We have provided the test certificates from our contractor for this financial year. £61.88 allowed Health & Safety Inspections £11.62 £0.00 Accept in principle BUT no evidence H&S inspection identified critical hazards reported 11/03/20: (1) Subsidized external steps Block 130-134B causing injuries to residents/guests (photos); (2) Broken security doors; (3) Missing fire equipment; (4) Improperly fixed fire access box. If inspections occurred, why were these hazards not identified and remedied? Require: H&S inspection reports, identified hazards, remedial No objections to charge.

Any defects are noted on our estate inspection checks. We have attached a sample of the estate inspections undertaken. NB The Health & Safety Inspection charge is for the testing of communal water supply for legionella. The estate inspection regime is covered as part £11.62 allowed

action plans with timescales. of our management fees. Pest Control £31.56 £0.00 Service required due to [NAME_3]’s failure to adequately manage refuse collection (see Bulk Waste Removal above). Accept charge but note this is consequential cost of [NAME_3]’s service failures. Require: pest control reports, treatment dates, evidence of treatments. No objections to charge. £31.56 allowed Repairs £73.28 £53.28 CHALLENGE - numerous repairs outstanding since March 2020 complaint: (1) Subsidized steps - structural hazard causing injuries; (2) Interior store cupboard door broken; (3) Adjacent fire door/framework broken; (4) Broken entry/security door locks (car park entrance); (5) Fire access box improperly secured (2 screws not 4); (6) Missing/broken wooden parking posts; (7) Worn car park bay numbering (not done in 25 years); (8) Blocked guttering/drains causing flooding; (9) Dilapidated lampposts need painting; (10) Missing lead flashing never replaced after theft. What repairs does this £73.28 represent? Require: Complete repair log for period, work orders, completion certificates, invoices, before/after photos, We have included a schedule of repairs undertaken with the associated costs. £20.00 allowed see decision

explanation why reported repairs remain outstanding Security Equipment Repairs £8.83 £8.83 Broken entry/security door at car park entrance reported 11/03/20 (photo evidence). Fire access box improperly secured (2 screws instead of 4) - coming away from wall. Require: evidence these specific items repaired, work orders, completion certificates, explanation why contractor paid without work verification (as acknowledged by [NAME_1] Manager [NAME_22]). We have included a schedule of repairs undertaken under security equipment repairs. The fire box was repaired by our contractors in June 2020. £8.83 allowed as not challenged at the hearing Water Rates £0.68 £0.00 Accept No objections to charge

[NAME_17] £21.84 £21.84 Service NEVER PROVIDED. No resident has ever seen window cleaner at estate (reported 11/03/20). This is charge for non- existent service. Previous year (2020/21) [NAME_3] admitted “missed visits and refund received” - proving pattern of non- delivery. Require: contractor name/contract award date, service frequency, service attendance logs, evidence of any [NAME_17] performed, explanation why charging for service never delivered.

Charge waived by [NAME_26] £113.79 £23.79 Challenge TOTAL cost allocation. Require: insurance [NAME_3] insure on a block insurance policy which £113.79 allowed

policy documents (Section 30A LTA 1985), breakdown of premium, explanation of apportionment methodology between properties, evidence of competitive tendering for Insurance. covers all properties under their ownership or management. The insurance policy is re- tendered each year to ensure that we are receiving the best market rates. Our insurers have agreed a rate based on the [NAME_1] type and the number of bedrooms. The rate for a 2 bedroom flat in 21-22 was £108.45 per year. The [NAME_1] rates are attached shown as 21-22 [NAME_30]. Management Fee £184.03 £134.03 [NAME_3] has systematically failed management obligations: (1) No response to detailed complaint 11/03/20 (28-day deadline given); (2) No response to follow- up 22/04/20 (40+ days elapsed); (3) Multiple follow-ups 2020-2024 with minimal substantive response; (4) Failure to address H&S hazards; (5) Failure to provide statutory documentation under Sections 21-22 LTA 1985; (6) Failure to supervise contractors adequately; (7) Payment of contractors without work verification (admitted by [NAME_1] reviewed our files I can see that we provided a file with supporting invoices on the 9/5/24. As at 13/2/26 your service charge debt stands at £10,322.62. The last payment we received from you was on the 1/4/2020. We are always happy to deal with any issues with our service delivery but we have to maintain adequate funds in the service charge accounts to ensure services are delivered to £184.03 allowed

Manager [NAME_22]); (8) Pursuit of CCJ proceedings rather than addressing legitimate complaints. Management fee should be reduced to reflect substandard management performance. Require: breakdown of management activities/costs, explanation of what “management” provided justifies this fee. the benefit of all residents. Our management fees cover the costs of managing the common parts of the estate and block. The charge also covers the costs of but not limited to :- Preparing of budget estimates including the printing and postage costs of such. Collecting of service charges throughout the year and dealing with any arrears recovery to ensure sufficient funds are available to deliver services to the estate and block. Accounting for service charge expenditure at the end of the financial year. Inspections of the [NAME_1] by our neighbourhood managers and repairs teams. Providing 24 hours support via our customer service hub. Sinking Fund Contribution £506.40 £256.40 CHALLENGE allocation and usage. Lease requires painting and overhaul of blocks every 7 years - NOT DONE. Blocks require: (1) Interior painting of We are unable to locate a clause within the lease requires the painting or overhaul every 7 years. The Respondent’s figure of £256.40 allowed

walls/ceilings; (2) Carpeting; (3) General modernization. No major works performed despite years of contributions. Why has sinking fund not been used for lease- mandated works? Why should residents continue contributing when fund not used appropriately? Require: sinking fund balance, fund usage history, explanation for failure to perform 7-year works, schedule for overdue painting/overhaul. sinking fund is collected to ensure that there are sufficient funds in place for works which fall outside of the normal accounting year occurring only once during the unexpired term of the lease or at intervals of more than one year. The balance of the sinking fund as at the end of January 2026 is £168,986.26.

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 31 March 2023

Case Reference: LON/00AD/LSC/2025/0890

Premises:134[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM FULL YEAR COST

AMOUNT DISPUTED TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) Ad-[NAME_14] £1.15 £0.65 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost incurred for Just ask attending removal of.” Unclear what service. Require: specification of work, completion evidence. The costs were for the removal of a sharps box to the bin area. Invoice AHC002 and [NAME_20] 38740 show this charge. £1.15 allowed Ad-Hoc Grounds Work £0.00

£0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Surplus as no costs incurred during service charge year.” Yet grounds maintenance deplorable. Zero Charge

Bulk Waste Removal £15.56 £10.26 [NAME_3] admits: “Costs incurred for recycling fives to attend on five occasions and remove dumped items/fly tipping from communal areas are more than budget.” Bins continuously overflow yet charged for “fly tipping” removal. Service inadequate creates problem. Invoice dated 3/11/22 for removal of 4 Fridges for £544.20 order number 3989167. Invoice dated 1/6/22 for removal of white goods at £488.80 order number 3866424. Invoice dated 1/6/22 for removal of 2 fridges from [ADDRESS] at £258.00 order 3889020. Invoice dated 24/2/22 for clearance of bin areas at £129.00 order number 3739091. Invoice dated 24/2/22 £5.00 allowed, see decision

for removal of white goods at £284.40 order number 3705867. Prior year crediting accrual of order 3866424 at - £276.00 [NAME_14] ([COMPANY_14]) £89.32 £64.32 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost incurred is in line with budget.” Yet service deplorable. [NAME_18] confirms [NAME_14]. Photo evidence provided previously shows failures. The [NAME_14] [COMPANY_14] heading is for our in house team delivering external [NAME_14] services to the estate so there are no invoices for these services as this is an apportioned rate for the salaries of the staff delivering the services. We have provided the attendance records for this period. We have also provided copies of the estate inspections for this financial year which don’t highlight any external [NAME_14] deficiencies, only bulk waste left in and around bin areas which has had to be cleared. £25.00 allowed Grounds Contract £51.84 £36.84 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost incurred is more than budget due to contract cost uplift.” Service DEPLORABLE. No pruning, tree stumps damage brickwork, zero replanting in 25+ The routine grounds maintenance is carried out on a fortnightly basis and this covers all litter picking, grass cutting, shrub bed maintenance and the trim £15.00 allowed

years. Why should residents pay for cost increases when service substandard? back of hedges and bushes on a cyclical basis. The routine grounds maintenance contract would only cover doesn’t cover new planting these costs would be incurred as an additional charge as and when identified. We have attached the contractor invoices for the period in question. Playground Equipment Repairs £4.23 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Costs incurred for addressing items identified by ROSPA inspection including closing mechanism to the gate, Junior MPU faults, safety surface and grass mats issues are more than budget.” Accept ROSPA compliance No objections to charge £4.23 allowed Playground Equipment Service Contract £6.84 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost incurred is more than budget as includes the required ROSPA inspection in addition to the servicing contract.” Accept. No objections to charge £6.84 allowed Refuse Bin Collection £0.00 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Surplus as no costs incurred during service charge year.” Yet bins overflow continuously. No objections to charge

Repairs £4.45 £2.45 [NAME_3] admits: “Surplus as costs incurred for We have included a schedule of £2.00 allowed

required unblocking of drains and repairs to the communal fencing are less than budget.” Numerous repairs from March 2020 remain outstanding. repairs undertaken with the associated costs. Water Rates £0.00 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Surplus as no costs incurred during service charge year. Please refer to block below for any actual expenditure.” No objections to charge

Ad-[NAME_14] £4.22 £3.22 [NAME_3] states: “Cost incurred for Just ask attending removal of bin hazard which was not budgeted for.” Then admits: “Costs incurred for contract service provided. The budget is missing due to adjustments to apportionments in line with the lease stipulations. [NAME_23] statement balancing overcharge figure reducing the deficit in line with your payments.” [NAME_3] due to incorrect apportionments! The budgets were all set against core levels but the costs have been taken against block level in line with the lease. The works was for a biological clean which occurred in December 22. We have attached invoice AHC001 and [NAME_20] 39847 which shows the breakdown of the invoice and the order. £4.22 allowed see decision [NAME_14] £183.27 £138.27 [NAME_3] admits: The budget is missing due to adjustments to apportionments in line with the lease stipulations. [NAME_23] statement The [NAME_14] service moved to our external contractors for this financial year. We have included a copy of the [NAME_14] transactions and £45.00 allowed

balancing overcharge figure reducing the deficit in line with your payments.” ZERO budget set, then residents charged actual costs! Service deplorable - [NAME_18] confirms [NAME_14] – please refer to email in BUNDLE previously provided. the invoices for the period. The estate inspections are also included which don’t highlight and issues with communal [NAME_14]. Electricity £353.09 £0.00 [NAME_3]: “Costs charged by the utilities company for communal electric supplies provided. The budget is missing due to adjustments to apportionments in line with the lease stipulations. Accept utility charge but apportionment methodology questionable. No objections to charge £353.09 allowed Emergency Lighting Repairs Contract £45.00 £30.00 [NAME_3]: “Costs incurred for contract service provided. The budget is missing due to adjustments to apportionments in line with the lease stipulations.” Missing light cover (photo evidence). Tunnel light not working. Require: evidence of actual repairs. The budgets were all set against core levels but the costs have been taken against block level in line with the lease. £45 allowed

Emergency Lighting Servicing Contract £63.28 £28.28 [NAME_3]: “Costs incurred for service provided. The budget is missing due to adjustments to apportionments in line with the lease stipulations.” Require: service logs Emergency Light Service occurs on a monthly basis. We have provided the test certificates from our contractor for this financial year. £63.28 allowed Fire Risk Assessments £13.75 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Costs less with budgeted. Water safety risk assessment in line with Health & Safety Legislation.” Accept H&S requirement. No objections to charge £13.75 allowed Health & Safety Inspections £3.02 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Repair costs lower than budgeted minor exterior lighting repairs.” Accept. No objections to charge £3.02 allowed Repairs £69.43 £44.43 [NAME_3] admits: “Repair costs lower than budgeted minor exterior lighting repairs. Cost in line with budget.” Accept but note numerous repairs remain outstanding from March 2020 complaint We have included a schedule of repairs undertaken with the associated costs. £25.00 allowed Security Equipment Repairs £12.57 £7.57 [NAME_3] admits: “Costs incurred for [NAME_24] attending reported communal door issues. The budget is missing due to adjustments to apportionments in line with the lease stipulations. Broken car park We have included a schedule of repairs undertaken under security equipment repairs. The fire box was repaired by our contractors in June 2020. £12.57 allowed as accepted by the Respondent

door reported 11/03/20. Fire box improperly secured. Water Rates £0.62 £0.00 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost incurred for Thames water communal supply.” Accept. No objections to charge 62p allowed [NAME_17] £22.52 £22.52 [NAME_3] admits: “Costs incurred for contract service provided. The budget is missing due to adjustments to apportionments in line with the lease stipulations.” Service NEVER PROVIDED. No resident has ever seen window cleaner. Charging for non-existent service. We have attached the [NAME_17] invoices for this period. It must be noted that the [NAME_17] is only for the communal parts and doesn’t include flat windows. waived [NAME_26] £137.93 £27.93 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost in line with budget.” Challenge total cost allocation. Require: insurance policy documents (Section 30A LTA 1985), premium breakdown, apportionment methodology. [NAME_3] insure on a block insurance policy which covers all properties under their ownership or management. The insurance policy is re- tendered each year to ensure that we are receiving the best market rates. Our insurers have agreed a rate based on the [NAME_1] type and the number of bedrooms. The rate for a 2 bedroom flat in 22-23 was £137.93 per year. The [NAME_1] rates are attached shown as 22-23 £137.93 allowed

[NAME_30]. Management Fee £187.71 £137.71 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost in line with budget.” STRONGLY CHALLENGE. Original complaint sent 11/03/20 received NO response despite 10-day commitment. Follow-up 22/04/20 after 40+ days - still no substantive response. Systematic management failures. Require: breakdown of management activities justifying fee Our management fees cover the costs of managing the common parts of the estate and block. The charge also covers the costs of but not limited to :- Preparing of budget estimates including the printing and postage costs of such. Collecting of service charges throughout the year and dealing with any arrears recovery to ensure sufficient funds are available to deliver services to the estate and block. Accounting for service charge expenditure at the end of the financial year. Inspections of the [NAME_1] by our neighbourhood managers and repairs teams. Providing 24 hours support via our customer service hub. We are sorry you feel your complaint wasn’t resolved but as the evidence provided suggests we have still £187.71 allowed

delivered services and managed the common parts of the estate. We have attached a sample of our estate & block inspections completed throughout the year Sinking Fund Contribution £506.40 £256.40 [NAME_3] admits: “Cost in line with budget.” CHALLENGE. Lease requires painting/overhaul every 7 years - NOT DONE. No major works done in the time frame despite contributions. Require: fund balance, usage history, explanation for failure to perform mandated works. We are unable to locate a clause within the lease requires the painting or overhaul every 7 years. The sinking fund is collected to ensure that there are sufficient funds in place for works which fall outside of the normal accounting year occurring only once during the unexpired term of the lease or at intervals of more than one year. The balance of the sinking fund as at the end of January 2026 is £168,986.26. £256.40 allowed

See decision for 2024 issues for which we allow £170.51 for the reasons stated