First-tier Tribunal Invalidates Service Charges for Non-Compliance

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AF/LSC/2023/0036 Property : Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], Orpington, Kent, [[APPELLANT]] Applicants : [redacted] [APPELLANT] ([NAME]) (2) [NAME] (Flat 1) (3) [COUNSEL] (Flat 2) (4) [COUNSEL] (Flat 4) Representative : Mr [COUNSEL] Respondents : [redacted] [NAME] [APPELLANT] (2) [NAME] (3) [NAME] [APPELLANT] (4) [APPELLANT[COMPANY]. Representative : Mr [COUNSEL] [NAME], [NAME] of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service [APPELLANT] under section 27A of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985 Tribunal members : [APPELLANT] [NAME] [NAME] : [ADDRESS], London [[APPELLANT]]

Date of [APPELLANT] of decision : 30 & 31 October 2023 5 January 2024

DECISION

2

Decisions of the tribunal A. The tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision and Scott Schedule ([APPELLANT]).

B. The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985 so that none of the [RESPONDENT] costs of the tribunal proceedings may be passed to the lessees through any service charge.

C. The tribunal determines that the respondent shall pay the applicant’s application and [APPELLANT] fee within 28 days of this Decision, in respect of the reimbursement of the tribunal fees paid by the applicants.

___________________________________________

The application 1. The applicants seek the following determinations:

(i) A determination under section 27A of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985 as to whether service [APPELLANT] are payable.

(ii) An order for the limitation of the landlord's costs in the proceedings under section 20C of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1985 and an order to reduce or extinguish their liability to pay an [APPELLANT] charge in respect of litigation costs, under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Background 2. The applicants are the long [NAME] of Flats 1 to 4 situate at [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], Orpington, Kent [[APPELLANT]].

3. The leases for the four subject flats are as follows:

Flat 1: Previous lease dated 8 February 10985. New lease dated 28th February 2017 made between [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] (the Landlord) and [NAME] (the [APPELLANT]).

Flat 2: Lease dated 26th August 2005 made between [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] (the Landlord) and [APPELLANT]

3 [APPELLANT] (the [APPELLANT]) was subsequently assigned to [APPELLANT].

[NAME]: Lease dated 15th June 2001 made between [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] (the Landlord) [APPELLANT] (the [APPELLANT]) and [NAME] (the [APPELLANT]) and subsequently assigned to Mr and Mrs [APPELLANT].

Flat 4: Previous lease dated 8 February 1985 made between [NAME] [APPELLANT] (the landlord and [NAME] (the [APPELLANT]) subsequently surrendered and re-granted in a Lease dated 9th July 2019 made between [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [NAME] (the Landlord) and [NAME] (the [APPELLANT])

4. The leases referred to the Building known as [APPELLANT] as comprising the six (residential) flats and did not include the ground floor commercial units. Further, the [APPELLANT], having sold/disposed of its interest in the flats, retained no further rights or obligations under the lease(s).

5. In the lease(s) the Building known as [APPELLANT] is defined as comprising the six flats on the first and second floors (‘the Building’) and makes no reference to the two commercial units on the ground floor.

6. The tribunal has identified the following issues that are required to be determined in respect of the service charge years 2015/2016 to 2021/2022: (i) whether the service [APPELLANT] have been properly demanded; (ii) whether the landlord has complied with the consultation requirement under section 20 of the 1985 Act;

(iii) whether the works/services are within the [RESPONDENT] obligations under the lease/ whether the [APPELLANT] of works/services are payable by the leaseholder under the lease;

(iv) whether the costs of the works/services are reasonable, in particular in relation to their nature, their quality and the contract price, and whether or not the works have in fact been completed

4 7. The works/services in question are identified in the applicants’ [NAME] under numerous heads and include the following:

(i) major works in 2016 (ii) [APPELLANT] costs (iii) management fees (iv) costs of [NAME] and health and safety report (v) general repairs and maintenance.

8. The first, second and third respondents are the previous and current freeholders of this family owned Building. In a witness statement dated 17/05/2023 by Mr [NAME], it was confirmed the freeholders of the Building were as follows:

From 2013: [APPELLANT], [NAME]

and [NAME] [APPELLANT].

From 2017 with the death of [APPELLANT] once

probate was achieved: [NAME] and

[APPELLANT]

From 20/05/2019 following the transfer of [NAME] [APPELLANT]’s

share to his wife [APPELLANT] and [NAME]

[APPELLANT]

[NAME] confirmed [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] is

a [APPELLANT] ‘owned’ by one or other of the respondents but

is not and has never been a freeholder/landlord of the

subject Building.

9. Neither party requested an inspection and the tribunal did not consider that one was necessary to determine the issues raised.

10. The applicants holds a long lease of the property which requires the landlord to provide services and the [APPELLANT] 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. [APPELLANT]

11. The applicants were represented by the first respondent, Mr [NAME] at [APPELLANT] and the respondents were represented by [NAME], [APPELLANT].

5 12. The applicants submitted a bundle of 2790(electronic) pages and a core bundle of 100 (electronic) pages. The respondents relied upon a bundle of 181 (electronic) pages (entitled ‘Amended Submissions’).

13. The tribunal found neither party followed the tribunal’s multiple directions. Instead the parties sent numerous documents piecemeal to the tribunal, notwithstanding they were neither instructed nor required to do so. Further, the tribunal found the applicants’ inclusion of multiple irrelevant issues, duplication of documents and evidence, and a failure to focus on the central issues that fell with the tribunal’s jurisdiction, to be particularly unhelpful.

14. Having heard evidence and submissions from the parties and considered all of the relevant documents provided, the tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as follows. These should also be read in conjunction with the tribunal’s [APPELLANT] made in the Scott Schedule attached to this decision as [APPELLANT]. The tribunal’s decisions and reasons 15. The tribunal finds the demands for payments of service [APPELLANT] (including [APPELLANT]) do not comply with the requirements of sections 47/48 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1987 and therefore are not payable by the applicants.

16. The relevant sections state:

47 [RESPONDENT] name and address to be contained in

demands for rent etc.

(1)Where any written demand is given to a [APPELLANT] of premises to

which this Part applies, the demand must contain the following

information, namely—

(a)the name and address of the landlord, and

(b)if that address is not in England and Wales, an address in

England and Wales at which notices (including notices in

proceedings) may be served on the landlord by the [APPELLANT].

(2)Where—

(a)a [APPELLANT] of any such premises is given such a demand, but

(b)it does not contain any information required to be contained in it

by virtue of subsection (1),

6

then (subject to subsection (3)) any part of the [APPELLANT] demanded

which consists of a service charge or an [APPELLANT] charge (“the

relevant [APPELLANT]”) shall be treated for all purposes as not being due

from the [APPELLANT] to the landlord at any time before that information is

furnished by the landlord by notice given to the [APPELLANT].

(3)…………………….

(4)In this section “demand” means a demand for rent or other sums

payable to the landlord under the terms of the tenancy.

48 Notification by landlord of address for service of

notices.

(1)A landlord of premises to which this Part applies shall by notice

furnish the [APPELLANT] with an address in England and Wales at which

notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on him by

the [APPELLANT].

(2)Where a landlord of any such premises fails to comply with

subsection (1), any rent service charge or [APPELLANT]

charge otherwise due from the [APPELLANT] to the landlord shall (subject

to subsection (3)) be treated for all purposes as not being due from

the [APPELLANT] to the landlord at any time before the landlord does

comply with that subsection.

(3)……………………………….

17. The tribunal finds the demands for payment of service [APPELLANT] (including [APPELLANT]) during the period 2017 to 2022 either included a c/o address for the respondents variously named as the landlord and/or failed to provide an address for the service of notices thereby rendering them invalid. Where the name of the freeholder/landlord was correctly given, a c/o address was provided, but no address at which notices could be served was provided.

18. Where the freeholder/landlord is an individual, it is necessary to provide the residential address or the place where they carry on business and it is not sufficient to simply provide the [APPELLANT] address. As the lease(s) make no provision for the payment of a service charge to a management [APPELLANT] there is a statutory requirement to give a s.47 notice.

7 19. Arguably a s.48 notice is only required to be given once. However, the respondents were unable to identify any demand where an address for the service of notices was given.

20. Consequently, the tribunal finds the payments demanded during the period 2016 to 2022 were not validly demanded and therefore not payable by the applicants.

21. Further, the tribunal finds the respondents failed to explain or provide any or any adequate evidence as to how [APPELLANT[COMPANY] (‘the [APPELLANT]’) was legally entitled to act as or on behalf of the freeholder, at any time during the period 2016 to 2022, enter into contracts for management of the building, [APPELLANT] or major or other works in order to fulfil the respondent [APPELLANT] obligations under the lease(s).

22. The tribunal finds the respondents and their management [APPELLANT] treated the legal identity of the freeholder/landlord as interchangeable with the [APPELLANT], although it had no legal obligation to provide services or right to demand payment. This is indicated by the management agreement entered into by the [APPELLANT] with [COMPANY] dated 14/12/2014 (and its successors) for the management of [APPELLANT] (including the commercial units); the placement of [APPELLANT] in the name of the [APPELLANT] and the majority of the demands for payment of service [APPELLANT]. Consequently, where costs have not been incurred by or on behalf of the freeholders/landlord, the applicants are not required under the lease to contribute to them.

23. However, the tribunal finds the section 20 consultation notices for the 2021 major works (door entry system), were correctly specified to be on behalf of the freehold landlords [NAME] and Mrs T [APPELLANT], unlike the 2016 notices where the specification of works was provided by the [APPELLANT].

24. The tribunal finds the works carried out as part of the annual service [APPELLANT], were carried out under the provisions of the lease, including clause 4 and the Third Schedule. The tribunal also finds that paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule which provides for payment by the lessees of, All other expenses (if any) reasonably incurred by the Landlord in and about the maintenance and proper and convenient management and running of the building’ is sufficiently wide to include the obtaining of the health and safety and other reports and items of annual service the applicants have sought to challenge.

25. The tribunal finds on the balance of probabilities that, from the evidence provided by the relevant invoices for works relied upon by the parties, the standard and [APPELLANT] of the major works both in 2016 (external decorations) and 2021 (door entry system) and the annual services, (except for the costs associated with the guttering/downpipes and management

8 [APPELLANT]’s fee), for the years 2016 to 2022, were carried out to a reasonable standard and [APPELLANT].

26. However, in the absence of any or any persuasive evidence as to the how the [APPELLANT] legally incurred costs on behalf of the [NAME], the tribunal finds the [APPELLANT] of the major works was incurred by the [APPELLANT] and not by the [NAME] and are therefore not recoverable from the applicants. Although the respondents stated that all but one of the [APPELLANT] demanded had been paid, no argument as to ‘estoppel’ was raised by either party and therefore the tribunal made no decision on this issue.

27. Similarly, the tribunal finds the annual service [APPELLANT] have been carried out/provided pursuant to a contract made between the [APPELLANT] and the [APPELLANT] and are not costs incurred by the freeholder/landlord and therefore are not payable by the applicants.

28. The respondents asserted the lessees are obliged under clause 3(2) of the lease to contribute and pay one sixth of the costs outgoings and expenses referred to in the Third Schedule. The tribunal finds the Third Schedule of the lease refers to the costs incurred in respect of the Building (which definition does not include the ground floor premises).

29. The tribunal finds the [APPELLANT] on 1/6 of the expenses incurred under the Third Schedule is in accordance with the applicants’ lease(s) and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to vary this figure However, the tribunal accepts the respondents’ assertions that where works have been carried out that impact upon or benefit the ground floor commercial properties, these units have been required to contribute a proportionate [APPELLANT].

30. In summary therefore, the tribunal finds: (i)The demands for payment are invalid as they variously do not correctly identify the freeholder/landlord or provide an address for the landlord or the address for service or notices. (ii) Costs, (including [APPELLANT], major works and annual service [APPELLANT]) have been incurred by the [APPELLANT] through its agreement with its [APPELLANT] and therefore are not costs incurred by the freeholder/landlord (except where the party insured is named as the freeholder in the [APPELLANT] schedule). (iii)The respondent has failed to provide evidence as to why/how the [APPELLANT] was authorised to act on behalf of the freeholder/landlord, although the [APPELLANT] has held itself out as either having incurred the sums demanded of the applicants or as the freeholder/landlord. (iv)The [APPELLANT] and standard of the major works and annual service [APPELLANT] (except for the [NAME] fee and [APPELLANT] premiums) are reasonable in standard and [APPELLANT].

9 (v)The lease requires there to be a 1/6 division of the costs incurred under the Third Schedule for the costs incurred in respect of six flats that comprise the Building known as [APPELLANT] and therefore this provision controls the proportions payable by the applicants, except where the commercial units are required under the terms of their leases to contribute to certain costs. (vi)The [APPELLANT] premiums are unreasonable in so far as they include sums pertinent only to the commercial units to which the applicants are also required to contribute. (vii)The [APPELLANT]’s fee have not been incurred by the freeholder/landlord and are not payable by the applicants. In any event the tribunal finds the management of the Building to have been wholly inadequate and unreasonable.

Application under s.20C and refund of fees 31. The applicants also made an application for a refund of the fees that he had paid in respect of the application/hearing1. Having made the decisions above, the tribunal orders the respondents to refund any fees paid by the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this decision.

32. In the application form the applicants applied for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. The tribunal determines that it is just and equitable in the circumstances for an order to be made under section 20C of the 1985 Act, so that the respondent may not pass any of its costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the tribunal through the service charge.

Name: [APPELLANT]: 5 January 2024

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

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

10 If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal ([NAME]), 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 property 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 ([NAME]).

[APPELLANT]

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 25/3/2016 – 24/3/2017 ([APPELLANT])

11 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT]’s [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal) [APPELLANT] for the Period

£1,347.14 (4x£336.78) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. *2) No competitive pricing comparisons, no information around it (i.e. business interruption [APPELLANT] / [NAME] rent i.e. paying too much for unneeded cover), doesn’t appear consistent with 50/50 spilt between commercial and [NAME], no provision of Fire, Health and Safety reports to confirm issues have been addressed to ensure [APPELLANT] isn’t void/appropriate for our needs. *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – [APPELLANT], no totals, no breakdowns, no apportioning (floor area percentage to 2 decimal places with all flats paying equal doesn’t appear correct when they are different sizes), doesn’t have Landlords service address. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, email address, “please make payments to,” “bank account number” and “acting as agents for” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Flat 1’s name and address vary between those [APPELLANT] served and Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Cover provided via block policy that is tested in market on regular basis [APPELLANT] is more advantageous to [NAME] than stipulated by lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Premium not payable by applicants. [APPELLANT] in the name of [APPELLANT] and not placed in the name of the freeholders SE [APPELLANT] & MM [NAME] as required by the lease(s) Further, the premiums are excessive in that they included items pertinent only to the commercial premises to which the applicants should not reasonably be required to contribute.

12 those provided to the Tribunal. [APPELLANT]

£48.00 (4x£12.00) £0.00 *1) Is not chargeable under the terms of the lease. Not incurred by a party to the lease *2) Is covered under [APPELLANT] agreement as a service provided *3) Not correctly demanded. Wasn’t served with Section 21B – [APPELLANT] Not provided with totals and shown breakdowns Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Not covered under agreement. Paid by all [NAME]. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory

[APPELLANT] reasonable or payable under the terms of the lease.

1. Chargeable under lease? 2. Reasonable in [APPELLANT]/ standard? 3. Correctly demanded?

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 25/3/2017 – 24/3/2018 ([APPELLANT]) Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT]’s [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal) [APPELLANT] for the Period

£1,457.20 (4x£364.30) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) No competitive pricing comparisons, no information around it (i.e. business interruption [APPELLANT] / [NAME] rent i.e. paying too much for unneeded cover), doesn’t appear consistent with 50/50 spilt between commercial and [NAME], no provision of Fire, Health and Safety reports to confirm issues have been addressed to ensure [APPELLANT] isn’t void/appropriate for our needs. *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – [APPELLANT], no totals, no breakdowns, Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Cover provided via block policy that is tested in market on regular basis [APPELLANT] is more advantageous to [NAME] than stipulated by lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Premiums not payable by the applicants. [APPELLANT] placed in the name of [APPELLANT] and not in the name of freeholder/landlord.

13 no apportioning (floor area percentage to 2 decimal places with all flats paying equal doesn’t appear correct when they are different sizes), doesn’t have Landlords service address. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, email address, “please make payments to” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Flat 1’s & 2’s name and address vary between those [APPELLANT] served and those provided to the Tribunal. [APPELLANT]

Not reasonable or payable by the applicants. Placement of [APPELLANT] is included in the management agreement between the respondents and the [APPELLANT] for which a charge is passed onto the applicants and therefore the ‘[APPELLANT] fee’ represents a ‘double recovery’ of the same [APPELLANT].

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 25/3/2018 – 24/3/2019 ([APPELLANT]) Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [RESPONDENT], [RESPONDENT], [RESPONDENT] n, Kent. [RESPONDENT](s) page number(s) in bundle [RESPONDENT] to [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] (for the tribunal)

14 [APPELLANT] for the Period

£1,456.76 (4x£364.19) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) No competitive pricing comparisons, no information around it (i.e. business interruption [APPELLANT] / [NAME] rent i.e. paying too much for unneeded cover), doesn’t appear consistent with 50/50 spilt between commercial and [NAME], no provision of Fire, Health and Safety reports to confirm issues have been addressed to ensure [APPELLANT] isn’t void/appropriate for our needs. *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – [APPELLANT], no totals, no breakdowns, no apportioning (floor area percentage to 2 decimal places with all flats paying equal doesn’t appear correct when they are different sizes), doesn’t have Landlords service address. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Flat 1’s name and address vary between those [APPELLANT] served and those provided to the Tribunal. Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Cover provided via block policy that is tested in market on regular basis [APPELLANT] is more advantageous to [NAME] than stipulated by lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Premiums not payable by applicants. [APPELLANT] placed in name of [APPELLANT] and not in name of [NAME]. [APPELLANT]

£48.00 (4x£12.00) £0.00 *1) Is not chargeable under the terms of the lease. Not incurred by a party to the lease Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under Not reasonable or payable under the terms of the lease.

15 *2) Is covered under [APPELLANT] agreement as a service provided *3) Not correctly demanded. Wasn’t served with Section 21B – [APPELLANT] Not provided with totals and shown breakdowns paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Not covered under agreement. Paid by all [NAME]. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 25/3/2019 – 24/3/2020 ([APPELLANT]) Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal) [APPELLANT] for the Period

£1,519.44 (4x£379.86) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) No competitive pricing comparisons, no information around it (i.e. business interruption [APPELLANT] / [NAME] rent i.e. paying too much for unneeded cover), doesn’t appear consistent with 50/50 spilt between commercial and [NAME], no provision of Fire, Health and Safety reports to confirm issues have been addressed to ensure [APPELLANT] isn’t void/appropriate for our needs. *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – [APPELLANT], no totals, no breakdowns, no apportioning (floor Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Cover provided via block policy that is tested in market on regular basis [APPELLANT] is more advantageous to [NAME] than stipulated by lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Premiums not payable by the applicants. [APPELLANT] placed in the name of [APPELLANT] and not in the name of freeholder/landlord

16 area percentage to 2 decimal places with all flats paying equal doesn’t appear correct when they are different sizes), doesn’t have Landlords service address. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different managing [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice [RESPONDENT]

£48.00 (4x£12.00) £0.00 *1) Is not chargeable under the terms of the lease. Not incurred by a party to the lease *2) Is covered under [RESPONDENT] agreement as a service provided *3) Not correctly demanded. Wasn’t served with Section 21B – [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] Not provided with totals and shown breakdowns Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Not covered under agreement. Paid by all [NAME]. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory

Not reasonable and not payable under the terms of the lease.

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 25/3/2020 – 24/3/2021 ([APPELLANT]) Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [RESPONDENT], [RESPONDENT], [RESPONDENT] n, Kent. [RESPONDENT]

17 [RESPONDENT](s) page number(s) in bundle [RESPONDENT] to [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] (for the tribunal) [APPELLANT] for the Period

£1,666.12 (4x£416.53) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) No competitive pricing comparisons, no information around it (i.e. business interruption [APPELLANT] / [NAME] rent i.e. paying too much for unneeded cover), doesn’t appear consistent with 50/50 spilt between commercial and [NAME], no provision of Fire, Health and Safety reports to confirm issues have been addressed to ensure [APPELLANT] isn’t void/appropriate for our needs. *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – [APPELLANT], no totals, no breakdowns, no apportioning (floor area percentage to 2 decimal places with all flats paying equal doesn’t appear correct when they are different sizes), doesn’t have Landlords service address. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different managing [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Cover provided via block policy that is tested in market on regular basis [APPELLANT] is more advantageous to [NAME] than stipulated by lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. [APPELLANT] placed in the name of [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] demanded and unreasonable in [APPELLANT] as includes cover pertinent only to the commercial units. [APPELLANT]

£36.00 (3x£12.00) £0.00 *1) Is not chargeable under the terms of the lease. Not incurred by a party to the lease *2) Is covered under [APPELLANT] on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of No provision in the lease and unreasonable in [APPELLANT] and not incurred by or on behalf of the

18 agreement as a service provided *3) Not correctly demanded. Wasn’t served with Section 21B – [APPELLANT] Not provided with totals and shown breakdowns Third schedule of lease. Not covered under agreement. Paid by all [NAME]. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory

freeholder/landlord and already included as part of management fee in management agreement.

See “Witness Statement Mr [APPELLANT] – 9/8/2023 - 1. [APPELLANT]” for specific details.

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 25/3/2021 – 24/3/2022 ([APPELLANT]) Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT]’s [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal) [APPELLANT] for the Period

£1,681.88 (4x£420.47) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) No competitive pricing comparisons, no information around it (i.e. business interruption [APPELLANT] / [NAME] rent i.e. paying too much for unneeded cover), doesn’t appear consistent with 50/50 spilt between commercial and [NAME], no provision of Fire, Health and Safety reports to confirm issues have been addressed to ensure [APPELLANT] isn’t void/appropriate for our needs. *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – [APPELLANT], no totals, no breakdowns, no apportioning (floor area percentage to 2 decimal places with all Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Cover provided via block policy that is tested in market on regular basis [APPELLANT] is more advantageous to [NAME] than stipulated by lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. [APPELLANT] placed in names of [APPELLANT] [NAME] and [APPELLANT] demanded and unreasonable in [APPELLANT] as includes cover pertinent only to the commercial units.

19 flats paying equal doesn’t appear correct when they are different sizes), doesn’t have Landlords service address. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice [APPELLANT]

[APPELLANT] reasonable or payable under the terms of the lease

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 25/3/2022 – 24/3/2023 ([APPELLANT]) Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal) [APPELLANT] for the Period

£2,015.04 (4x£503.76) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) No competitive pricing comparisons, no information around it (i.e. business Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 5 of Third schedule of lease. Cover provided via block policy Premium not payable by applicants. [APPELLANT] placed in the name of [APPELLANT] and not in the name of the freeholder/landlord.

20 interruption [APPELLANT] / [NAME] rent i.e. paying too much for unneeded cover), doesn’t appear consistent with 50/50 spilt between commercial and [NAME], no provision of Fire, Health and Safety reports to confirm issues have been addressed to ensure [APPELLANT] isn’t void/appropriate for our needs. *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – [APPELLANT], no totals, no breakdowns, no apportioning (floor area percentage to 2 decimal places with all flats paying equal doesn’t appear correct when they are different sizes), doesn’t have Landlords service address. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice that is tested in market on regular basis [APPELLANT] is more advantageous to [NAME] than stipulated by lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. [APPELLANT]

Not reasonable or payable by the applicants under the terms of the lease.

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED 2016 Major Works – 28/11/2016 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4,

21 [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

[APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT]’s [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal) Major Works 2016

£51,027.20 [APPELLANT]:

£17,009.08 (4x£4,252.27) £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. At the time this was bought to the Landlords attention, they ignored and choose to purse with a debt collector before works had been completed, with issues & snagging still outstanding. *2) No. Unknown as to what work was performed (and its standard) as the work wasn’t correctly project managed by the [NAME] own admission and we’ve seen no evidence of it being managed by an appropriate Quantity Surveyor or equivalent (even though it has been charged for). Maintenance issues in subsequent years and the [NAME] handling of them tend to indicate works weren’t done and the [APPELLANT] knows this. We have never seen any evidence of the work being performed, no work in progress and milestone photos that is common practice for works of a value of £51,027.20. Never had any clarity or evidence around additional works that were requested by the Landlord at leaseholder’s expense. *3) No. Building work invoices are not in the name of the Landlord or a party to the lease so the Landlord hasn’t incurred any expense and not chargeable to [NAME] under terms of the [APPELLANT] of work £51,027.20 Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 2. of Third schedule of lease. Section 20 Consultation completed, nominated contractor appointed, extensive communication with [NAME] during work.

Works were properly managed. Sums correctly demanded.

Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal.

Sums not incurred by freeholder/landlord, [APPELLANT] demanded and not payable by the applicants. Section 20 consultation carried out in the name of [APPELLANT[COMPANY] and not the freeholder. Works carried out at a reasonable [APPELLANT] and standard.

22 lease. When irregularities were pointed out at the time to the Landlord, they were ignored and [NAME] was illegally referred to a debt collector for a debt that didn’t exist. This was to bully compliance and have a chilling effect for future, legitimate dissent in relation to service [APPELLANT]. No Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. [NAME] [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different managing [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, email address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Flat 1’s & 2’s name and address vary between those [APPELLANT] served and those provided to the Tribunal. Doesn’t have Landlords service address. The additional works invoice requested by the Landlord wasn’t created until 17/5/2023, same day as submission to the Tribunal. Clearly there wasn’t an invoice to even enforce tile its creation 6 years later (this is only an

23 ‘estimate’ and not an ‘invoice’ as the others are by [NAME]). Invalid Debt Collector Fee

£185.13 £0.00 *1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) Wasn’t reasonable given the facts of the situation and numerous administrative errors i.e. inclusion of ground rent which had been set to a peppercorn several years early. As per FCA guidelines, matter should have been referred back to [APPELLANT] and restarted (was not a reasonable / valid charge). *3) Not correctly demanded. Wasn’t served with Section 21B – [APPELLANT]. The additional works invoice requested by the Landlord wasn’t created until 17/5/2023, same day as submission to the Tribunal. Clearly there wasn’t an invoice to even enforce til its creation 6 years later (this is only an ‘estimate’ and not an ‘invoice’ as the others are by [NAME]). Leaseholder of [NAME] given ample time to pay and offered a payment plan to assist.

[APPELLANT] not reasonable or payable by applicant. No provision in lease for recovery of such sum. Demanded by the property [APPELLANT] on behalf of [APPELLANT] developments [APPELLANT] who is neither the freeholder nor landlord of the [NAME].

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED Service Charge Year Ending 30/6/2016 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

[APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT]’s [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal) For All Items

*1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to All items incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable All service charge demand are invalid as they do not

24 [NAME]. No invoices provided for any items. *2) Landlord and [RESPONDENT] staff servants functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ as required under terms of the lease - see [NAME] lease (5)(d)(iii) *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. Some totals missing. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different Landlord, different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, email address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Flat 1’s & 2’s name and address vary between those [APPELLANT] served and those provided to the Tribunal. Schedule of Expenses also has “(8.33% PER FLAT),” “(12.5% OF TOTAL)” and “(37.5% OF TOTAL)” that wasn’t on originally served documents. Doesn’t have Landlords service address. When irregularities were pointed out at the time to the Landlord, they were ignored and [NAME] was illegally referred to a debt collector for a debt that didn’t exist. This was to bully compliance and have a chilling effect for future, legitimate dissent in relation to service [APPELLANT]. SRC documentation was never served as it is signed on 10.03.2023 under Third schedule of lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal. comply with ss 47/48 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1987. All services provided by the [APPELLANT] acting on behalf of the [APPELLANT] and therefore were not incurred by the freeholder/landlord.

25 Health & Safety Report £120.00 £0.00 *1) No. Fire, Health and Safety reports never used in connection with the building. *2) No. Fire, Health and Safety report never used in the manner it was commission and an unreasonable expense. Never provided to residents Required under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. No evidence to demonstrate [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. 50% of [APPELLANT] charged to [NAME].

Management Fee £600.00 £0.00 *1) [APPELLANT]’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ required by the lease, so not chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of inspections, complying with Fire, Health and Safety reports or work performed to justify [NAME] fee. [NAME] being charged 100% of [NAME] fee and should only be 50% as shared with [NAME] in a 50/50 split. Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 6 of Third schedule of lease. No Evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. Not payable by the applicants. The subject Building has been managed by the same [APPELLANT] since 2014. Despite this, no notification was given to the applicants when the identity of the freeholder/landlord changed; [APPELLANT] consistently incorrectly placed in the name of [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] and demands for payment made in the name of this [APPELLANT], despite having no legal liability to recover such sums. Furter, the management agreement relied upon by the respondents to substantiate the payment of a management fee is made between [COMPANY] and [APPELLANT] [APPELLANT] Lt who have no legal interest in the Building and cannot be relied upon in the absence of any explanation as to how, if at all, the [APPELLANT] is entitled to act on behalf of the freeholders at any time during the period 2016 to 2022. Service provided by [APPELLANT] extremely poor over many years and therefore unreasonable in [APPELLANT], although is recoverable under the terms of the lease (if reasonable in [APPELLANT] for the service provided). Electrical Repair

£373.00 £0.00 *2) No evidence of work done to a reasonable standard. Routine work carried out by qualified electrician no evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable or work substandard. [APPELLANT] reasonable and payable by applicants subject to the [APPELLANT] having been incurred by the freeholder/landlord and validly demanded.

26 No evidence work has not been completed to a reasonable standard. Electricity

£83.74 £0.00

[NAME] obliged to contribute to electricity under paragraphs 3 of Third Schedule.

[NAME] £48.00 £0.00 *1) [NAME] a business expense of the [APPELLANT], covered under managing as a provided service. *2) [APPELLANT] to organise electricity is 57% of the total electricity [APPELLANT] – not reasonable. *3) This is an [APPELLANT] fee for arranging electricity and requires Section 21B – [APPELLANT] to be issued and never was. Not a business expense.

Total £1,224.74 Divide by 6 = £204.12

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED Service Charge Year Ending 30/6/2017 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

*1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) Landlord and [RESPONDENT] staff servants functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ as required under terms of the lease - see [NAME] lease (5)(d)(iii) *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy All items incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under Third schedule of lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed.

Service [APPELLANT] not payable by applicants. Demands omitted information required by ss 47/48 Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1987. All service [APPELLANT] (except [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] fees/admin fees have been provided at a reasonable [APPELLANT] and to a reasonable standard. However, these sums are not payable by the

27 of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. [NAME] [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different Landlord, different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Flat 1’s name and address vary between those [APPELLANT] served and those provided to the Tribunal. Doesn’t have Landlords service address. SRC documentation was never served as it is signed on 10.03.2023 Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal. applicants as the costs have not been incurred by the freeholder/landlord and no valid demand for payment has been made. Door Repair £96.00 £0.00 *2) Work was not to a reasonable standard as door continued not to work. No evidence of work done to a reasonable standard. Later Section 20 Door then based upon this work having not been performed correctly. Callout in response to report of entry system not working. See above Waste Removal

£160.00 £0.00

Not clear if this [APPELLANT] is being contested. [NAME] Management Fee

£600.00 £0.00 *1) [APPELLANT]’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ required by the lease, so not chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of inspections, complying with Fire, Health and Safety reports or work performed to justify [NAME] fee. [NAME] being charged 100% of [NAME] fee and should only be 50% as shared with [NAME] in a 50/50 split. Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 6 of Third schedule of lease. No Evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. [NAME]

28 Light Repair £272.00 £0.00 *2) Not reasonable to charge £110.00 to go to site to quote. No evidence of ACES carrying out repairs, required 2 visits due to not being in the area and not reasonable. First visit in response to report from residents of lights not working. Routine work carried out by qualified electrician no evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable or work substandard. [NAME]

£80.37 £0.00

[NAME] obliged to contribute to electricity under paragraphs 3 of Third Schedule. [NAME] [NAME] £48.00 £0.00 *1) [NAME] a business expense of the [APPELLANT], covered under managing as a provided service. *2) [APPELLANT] to organise electricity is 60% of the total electricity [APPELLANT] – not reasonable. *3) This is an [APPELLANT] fee for arranging electricity and requires Section 21B – [APPELLANT] to be issued and never was. Not a business expense. [NAME] £1,256.37 Divide by 6 = £209.40

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED Service Charge Year Ending 30/6/2018 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

*1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) Landlord and [RESPONDENT] staff servants functions have not been All items incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under Third schedule of lease. Service [APPELLANT] not payable by applicants Demands for payment not

29 ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ as required under terms of the lease - see [NAME] lease (5)(d)(iii) *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. [NAME] [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different Landlord, different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, then those served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Flat 1’s & 2’s name and address vary between those [APPELLANT] served and those provided to the Tribunal. Doesn’t have Landlords service address. Some items never show the total [APPELLANT] of the invoice and the smaller [APPELLANT] due by the leaseholder as required. SRC documentation was never served as it is signed on 10.03.2023 Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed.

Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal. compliant with ss 47/48 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1987. Health & Safety Report

£129.60 £0.00 *1) No. Fire, Health and Safety reports never used in connection with the building. *2) No. Fire, Health and Safety report never used in the manner it was commission and an unreasonable expense. Never provided to residents Required under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. No evidence to demonstrate [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. [NAME] & Cleaning

£239.85 £0.00 *2) Not sure what this is for. Schedule lists as “Waste Removal” but [NAME] in same parade of shops as [APPELLANT] and is a small shop. Wouldn’t be Reimbursed expenditure to one of Applicants for four bins, bin liners and gloves. [NAME]

30 waste removal. Invoice / receipt doesn’t make sense. Management Fee

£324.00 £0.00 *1) [APPELLANT]’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ required by the lease, so not chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of inspections, complying with Fire, Health and Safety reports or work performed to justify [NAME] fee. [NAME] [NAME] fee should only be 50% as shared with [NAME] in a 50/50 split. Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 6 of Third schedule of lease. No Evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. [NAME] In any event unreasonable in [APPELLANT] and in standard of service provided for the reasons stated above. Emergency Plumber

£336.96 £0.00 Drain related?! Section 20 2016 *2) Not reasonable to charge £624.00 for 2 site visits (3 hours) to clean a blockage – poorly managed. With access to roof, is this a result of work that was/poorly performed from 2016 Major Works that weren’t done correctly? Nothing to do with major works and it required two call outs to resolve blockage. [NAME]

£131.37 £0.00 *2) Large increase on previous years – numerous line [APPELLANT] problems: 21.08.2017 – £13.35 no bill for this and shouldn’t be there. 05.03.18 - £21.35 charged twice for this. 24.05.18 - £71.00 Estimate is ~10x normal usage on the estimate (17426). Following bill has estimate (17100). Would imagine there is a refund to the [NAME] that has never been accounted for. [NAME] obliged to contribute to electricity under paragraphs 3 of Third Schedule. [NAME] [NAME] £54.00 £0.00 *1) [NAME] a business expense of the [APPELLANT], covered under managing as a provided service. *2) [APPELLANT] to organise electricity is 60% of the total electricity [APPELLANT] – not reasonable. *3) This is an [APPELLANT] fee for arranging electricity and requires Section 21B – [APPELLANT] to be issued and never was. Not a business expense. [NAME]

£80.00 £0.00

Not clear if this [APPELLANT] is being contested. [NAME] £1,295.78 Divide by 6 = £215.96

1. Chargeable under lease? 2. Reasonable in [APPELLANT]/ standard?

31 3. Correctly demanded?

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED Service Charge Year Ending 30/6/2019 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

*1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) Landlord and [RESPONDENT] staff servants functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ as required under terms of the lease - see [NAME] lease (5)(d)(iii) *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different Landlord, different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, invoices numbers, date/tax point numbers, then those served upon the [NAME]. All items incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under Third schedule of lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal.

Service [APPELLANT] no payable by applicants. Demands do not comply with ss 47/48 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] 1987.

32 No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Doesn’t have Landlords service address. Schedule of Expenses was never issued with Service Charge accounts. SRC documentation was never served as it is signed on 10.03.2023 Management Fee

£324.00 £0.00 *1) [APPELLANT]’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ required by the lease, so not chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of inspections, complying with Fire, Health and Safety reports or work performed to justify [APPELLANT]’s fee. [NAME] [NAME] fee should only be 50% as shared with [NAME] in a 50/50 split. Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 6 of Third schedule of lease. No Evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. [NAME] In any event, [APPELLANT] not reasonable for the reasons stated above. Downpipe Repair

£142.56 £0.00 *1) Given 2016 Major works 2 years prior, if that was done correctly, hard to believe it would have needed repairing within 2 years. *2) £220.00 to reconnect a downpipe and fix seems very expensive. No evidence of work being done.

Routine repair. Carried out two years after major works completed. [NAME]

£49.30 £0.00

[NAME] obliged to contribute to electricity under paragraphs 3 of Third Schedule. [NAME] [NAME] £54.00 £0.00 *1) [NAME] a business expense of the [APPELLANT], covered under managing as a provided service. *2) [APPELLANT] to organise electricity is 110% of the total electricity [APPELLANT] – not reasonable. Paying more to organise electricity than electricity costs. *3) This is an [APPELLANT] fee for arranging electricity and requires Section 21B – [APPELLANT] to be issued and never was. Not a business expense. [NAME] £569.86 Divide by 6 = £94.98

33 [NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED Service Charge Year Ending 30/6/2020 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

*1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) Landlord and [RESPONDENT] staff servant’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ as required under terms of the lease - see [NAME] lease (5)(d)(iii) *3) Only sent via email, not a valid service demand. Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. MJ [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different Landlord, different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, then those allegedly served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Doesn’t have Landlords service address.

All items incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under Third schedule of lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal. Service [APPELLANT] not payable by the applicants. Demands not compliant with the requirements of ss 47/48 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] act 1987.

34 Schedule of Expenses only contained [NAME]’ breakdown, didn’t have [NAME]. SRC documentation was never served as it is signed on 10.03.2023 Health & Safety Report

£136.08 £0.00 *1) No. Fire, Health and Safety reports never used in connection with the building. *2) No. Fire, Health and Safety report never used in the manner it was commission and an unreasonable expense. Never provided to residents Required under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. No evidence to demonstrate [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. [NAME] Management Fee

£324.00 £0.00 *1) [APPELLANT]’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ required by the lease, so not chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of inspections, complying with Fire, Health and Safety reports or work performed to justify [APPELLANT]’s fee. [NAME] [NAME] fee should only be 50% as shared with [NAME] in a 50/50 split. Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 6 of Third schedule of lease. No Evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. [NAME] Not reasonable or payable by the applicants for the reasons stated above. Snagging Items 54%

259.20 £0.00 *1) if money held back, why charged again? *2) What snagging items does this refer to – no details? [NAME] been charged twice as money from 2016 Major works was held back (why were these funds not used)?

[NAME] 54%

£529.20 £0.00 *2) Repairs haven’t been evidenced (dates of work, photos of before/after), didn’t occur, weren’t reasonably incurred, not done to a reasonable standard and no competitive pricing given. In service year ended 30/6/2022, there is another charge from 4/7/2021 from [NAME] for “Gate & Cupboard repairs” for £480.00. This would indicate this years’ service charge invoice of £980.00 by [NAME] wasn’t done correctly as otherwise one would anticipate repairs being done under a trades ‘warranty’ or similar, if the work wasn’t done correctly or to a reasonable standard in the first instance. The work by [NAME] appears to be nepotism by Mr [NAME] [NAME] in another instance when questioned over the work by this trade (see letter 5/3/2022 page 42, 90 & 95). We couldn’t be provided with basic information such as when the trade was on site, photos of any of their work Replacement of electrical cupboard doors and decorating. [NAME]

35 and only offered “[NAME] has carried our work for me for over twenty four years” as proof disputed work was carried out. Electricity

£113.68 £0.00

[NAME] obliged to contribute to electricity under paragraphs 3 of Third Schedule. [NAME] [NAME] £54.00 £0.00 *1) [NAME] a business expense of the [APPELLANT], covered under managing as a provided service. *2) [APPELLANT] to organise electricity is 48% of the total electricity [APPELLANT] – not reasonable. Paying more to organise electricity than electricity costs. *3) This is an [APPELLANT] fee for arranging electricity and requires Section 21B – [APPELLANT] to be issued and never was. Not a business expense. [NAME] £1,416.16 Divide by 6 = £236.03

See “Witness Statement Mr [NAME] – 9/8/2023 - 7. Service Charge: 01/07/2019 – 30/6/2020” for specific details.

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED

Serv ice Cha rge Year Endi ng 30/6 /202 1 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

[APPELLANT](s) page number(s) in bundle [APPELLANT] to [APPELLANT]’s [APPELLANT] * [RESPONDENT] [APPELLANT] * [APPELLANT] (for the tribunal)

36 For All Items

*1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) Landlord and [RESPONDENT] staff servants functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ as required under terms of the lease - see [NAME] lease (5)(d)(iii) *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. [NAME] [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different Landlord, different [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, then those allegedly served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Credit (£95.83 per residential leaseholder) was given after invalid demand as the £1,250 Snagging was later queried by [NAME]: why it wasn’t shared across the building? Hence later adjusted and couldn’t have been issued originally. Doesn’t have Landlords service address. Schedule of Expenses only contained [NAME]’ breakdown, didn’t have All items incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under Third schedule of lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed.

Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal. Service [APPELLANT] not payable by the applicants. Demands not compliant with the requirements of ss 47/48 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] act 1987.

37 [NAME]. SRC documentation was never served as it is signed on 10.03.2023 This year, several [NAME] issued “paid under protest” letters. Flat 2 emailed a Payment under Protest letter dated 8/3/2022 to Mr [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] on 8/3/2022 and did not receive a response. [NAME] emailed a Payment under Protest letter to Mr [NAME] [NAME] on 7/3/2022 and did not receive a response (see Appendix CE). Management Fee

£405.00 £0.00 *1) [APPELLANT]’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ required by the lease, so not chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of inspections, complying with Fire, Health and Safety reports or work performed to justify [NAME] fee. [NAME] [NAME] fee should only be 50% as shared with [NAME] in a 50/50 split. Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 6 of Third schedule of lease.

[NAME] In any event, not reasonable in [APPELLANT] for the reasons provided above. Internal Snagging & Painting F [NAME]

£1,250 £0.00 *2) No evidence of [NAME] carrying out repairs, not to a good standard or reasonable in [APPELLANT]. No competitive pricing. The work by [APPELLANT] appears to be nepotism by Mr [NAME] [NAME] in another instance when questioned over the work by this trade (see letter 5/3/2022 page 42, 90 & 95). We couldn’t provide basic information such as when the trade was on site, photos of any of their work and only offered “[NAME] has carried our work for me for over twenty four years” as proof disputed work was carried out. *3) Invoiced wrong building/flat, no evidence of work being carried out. If work/ Major Works 2016 had been done properly in prior years that [NAME] had paid Work carried out to Flat 4 in response to damage caused to the decor by ongoing leaks from chimney stack and penetrating damp. [NAME]

38 for, this should have been an [APPELLANT] claim. The managing [APPELLANT] advising an [APPELLANT] claim would be “fraudulent” indicates they are very aware work they have billed for and allegedly project managed has never been done. No competitive pricing New Cylinder x 20 keys £327.98 £0.00 *2) Not reasonably incurred as barrel didn’t need changing as latch was broken (changing the barrel was never going to deal with the issue – even locksmith at the time admitted as much). [NAME] then [APPELLANT] when following up with Locksmith it was working when it wasn’t. Whole issue was mis- managed by [APPELLANT]. Lock changed in response to concerns from residents that unauthorised persons were gaining access to communal areas of flats. [NAME] 54% £459.00 £0.00 *2) No evidence of chimney repairs and grass remained growing out of guttering after allegedly having been cleared. Application of storm dry cream and gutter clearance on front elevation. Standard of work and [APPELLANT] unreasonable. . Unblock wastepipes 54%

£81.00 £0.00 *2) No evidence of drain work and multiple call out invoices appear due to mismanagement by the [APPELLANT]. When [NAME] was queried several times over this charge, he just ignored and didn’t respond. Call out in response to report of blocked waste pipe. Work reasonable in [APPELLANT] and standard but carried out pursuant to an agreement made between the [APPELLANT] and the [APPELLANT] and not with the freeholder/landlord. Unblock wastepipes 54% £81.00 £0.00 As Above Call out in response to report of blocked waste pipe. [NAME] 2 x Outside Lights 54%

£76.68 £0.00 *2) Changing light bulbs expense also high: change 2 light bulbs worth ~£6 total and apply some silicon. Call out to check all lighting in communal area. [NAME]

£141.63 £0.00

[NAME] obliged to contribute to electricity under paragraphs 3 of Third Schedule. [NAME] [NAME] £54.00 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. [NAME] a business expense of the [APPELLANT], covered under managing as a provided service. *2) [APPELLANT] to organise electricity is 48% of the total electricity [APPELLANT] – not reasonable. Paying more to organise Not a business expense. [NAME]

39 electricity than electricity costs. *3) This is an [APPELLANT] fee for arranging electricity and requires Section 21B – [APPELLANT] to be issued and never was.

Total £2,876.29 Divide by 6 = £479.38 (less £95.83 credit later due to accounting error)

[NAME] [APPELLANT] S/C YEAR ENDED Service Charge Year Ending 30/6/2022 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2023/00 36 Premises: Flats 1 to 4, [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] n, Kent. [[APPELLANT]]

*1) Not incurred by a party to the lease. Entity issuing invoice is unknown to [NAME]. *2) Landlord and [RESPONDENT] staff servants functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ as required under terms of the lease - see [NAME] lease (5)(d)(iii) *3) Not correctly demanded with Section 21B – Summary of [APPELLANT]’s Rights and Obligations - Service [APPELLANT] and/or [APPELLANT] were ever served. A copy of one was later emailed to [NAME] but didn’t ‘accompany’ the demand (so not valid service on either point). This shows, along with All items incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under Third schedule of lease. Paid by all [NAME] in response to demands. Failure to include Section 21B notices only suspensory [APPELLANT] address confirmed. Applicants have failed to understand previous applications to Tribunal.

Service [APPELLANT] not payable by the applicants. Demands not compliant with the requirements of ss 47/48 of the Landlord and [APPELLANT] act 1987.

40 prior Tribunal appearances by Mr. [NAME], they are aware Section 21B needs to be served but choose not to serve, let alone serve correctly, to deny [NAME] basic information about their rights and obligations required by statute. We challenge the reliability of the Respondents documents provided to the Tribunal 15/2/2023. They have different Landlord, different managing [APPELLANT], letterhead/[APPELLANT] logo, website address, “please make payments to,” and “acting as agents for” details, then those allegedly served upon the [NAME]. No legally required [APPELLANT] number listed on invoice. Doesn’t have Landlords service address. Schedule of Expenses only contained [NAME]’ breakdown, didn’t have [NAME]. SRC documentation was never served as it is signed on 10.03.2023 m Management Fee £939.60 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. [APPELLANT]’s functions have not been ‘carried out with proper skill and care’ required by the lease, so not chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of inspections, complying with Fire, Health and Safety reports or work performed to justify [NAME] fee. [NAME] [NAME] fee should only be 50% as shared with [NAME] in a 50/50 split. *3) Not correctly demanded. As more than £100 per a leaseholder and long term qualifying contract, and no Incurred on behalf of freeholder by [APPELLANT], chargeable under paragraph 6 of Third schedule of lease. No Evidence that [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. Management Fee not incurred by the landlord. Service of demands invalid. Standard of service and fee unreasonable

41 Section 20 was issued, [APPELLANT] should be [APPELLANT] to £100 per leaseholder. Leak Detection 54% £874.80 £0.00 *1) Not chargeable under terms of the lease. Leak had been going on for ~3 years before this expense with [NAME] making little attentions to establish cause (most likely due to their services or similar). *2) Leak detection (by [COMPANY]) wasn’t performed correctly and unsupervised. LDS didn’t even visually inspect the leak in the [NAME] / Laundrette. Freeholder / [APPELLANT] advised several times but no reply. The report is unfounded and had no verifiable evidence to support its findings. 2 individuals onsite for 2 hours and charged £1620.00 for a defective report. Not reasonable. Appeared costs inflated due to LDS not being local and requiring overnight accommodation. No competitive pricing and don’t accept there is no one in London / local who could do similar work without an overnight stay. A local plumber would have been able to perform, visually inspect and diagnose the issue, and done a better job at a fraction of the price. Suspect original source of leak may have been from Coops roof that was repaired January 2022, just before leak detection inspection was carried out. Leak into ground floor shops from Flats 1 & 3. Part of [APPELLANT] claim. Fee not incurred by or on behalf of the freeholder/landlord under the management agreement entered into with the [APPELLANT]. Service of demands invalid. Standard and [APPELLANT] of work otherwise reasonable Light Repairs £191.00 £0.00 *2) Multiple call outs and appears to be due to administrative errors by [APPELLANT] but [NAME] unreasonably expected to pay for. If similar to previous work by [NAME], we suspect [APPELLANT] are inflated for the work that is done. Call out in response to report from residents of lights not working [NAME] / Replacement

£180.00 £0.00 As above Second visit required to deal with all issues. [NAME]/ downpipe cleaning £264.60 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense [NAME] cleared in response to concerns Fee not incurred by or on behalf of the freeholder/landlord

42 incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) Since early 2021, raised issues of being charged for clearing gutters but no evidence of this being done and grass growing out of it. Appears to be another charge for work not done prior and is not reasonable. No evidence of work being done. expressed by residents. under the management agreement entered into with the [APPELLANT]. Service of demands invalid. Standard and [APPELLANT] of work unreasonable as photographic evidence indicates long-term growth of weeds was not properly addressed. Door Entry System £1,557.60 £0.00 *3) Section 20 process wasn’t done correctly, invalid, multiple call outs to address issues that either should have been included under warranty or due to [APPELLANT]’s poor administrative abilities. Work required due to poor workmanship done in previous service charge year that has been billed for and should have been dealt with under warranty. This continues a pattern of trades being called out multiple times, charging call out fees per visit when [APPELLANT] not supervising as required by their managing [APPELLANT] agreement, and not doing work to a good standard. It would appear only a £60.00 new latch was required and it is generating work for the [NAME] preferred contractor friend of 24 years. S.20 Consultation carried out correctly. On site meeting arranged with contractor and residents to discuss the work required. All applicants agreed at the meeting to the works that were implemented. Section 20 consultation correctly carried out in name of the freeholder/landlord. Work carried out a reasonable standard and [APPELLANT]. Demands for payment invalid. Repair call out Fee £108.00 £0.00 As above Call out but Flat 6 failed to provide access. [NAME] call out fee £114.00 £0.00 As above Call out for fuse replacement. [NAME] replacement £144.00 £0.00 As above Callout and [APPELLANT] to replace handset following original failed called out due to no access being provided. [NAME] 54% £55.08 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence work done to a good standard. Clearing blockage of waste pipe affecting Flat 1. [NAME] & Cupboard Repairs

£480.00 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense Majority of [APPELLANT] was for supply of new gate and [NAME]

43 incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. *2) No evidence of [NAME] carrying out repairs, not to a good standard or reasonable in [APPELLANT]. We don’t understand what these are for and what work that was performed was done to a poor standard. We have yet to see invoices and evidence of work being completed and done to a good standard. We note that for the service charge year ending 30/6/2020, [NAME] charged £980.00 for work to the same area. This would seem to indicate work wasn’t done correctly in first instance as otherwise one would anticipate repairs being done under a trade’s ‘warranty’ or similar. We have previously raised the issue of nepotism with Mr [NAME] [NAME] and [NAME] as he isn’t local to the building. posts, fitting and staining but also the replacement of a lock on one of the cupboard doors. [NAME] £54.00 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. [NAME] a business expense of the [APPELLANT], covered under managing as a provided service. *2) [APPELLANT] to organise electricity is 25% of the total electricity [APPELLANT] – not reasonable. *3) This is an [APPELLANT] fee for arranging electricity and requires Section 21B – [APPELLANT] to be issued and never was. Not a business expense. [NAME] & Safety Report £136.08 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. No. Fire, Health and Safety reports never used in connection with the building. *2) No. Fire, Health and Safety report never used in the manner it was commission and an unreasonable expense. Required under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. No evidence to demonstrate [APPELLANT] was unreasonable. [NAME]

44 [NAME] 54%

£103.68 £0.00 *1) No invoice has been provided so no evidence expense incurred and chargeable under terms of the lease. [NAME] never used in connection with the building. *2) No. [NAME] report never used in the manner it was commission and an unreasonable expense. Required under control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. [NAME] £5,387.42 Divide by 6 = £897.90

See “Witness Statement Mr [NAME] – 9/8/2023 - 9. Service Charge: 01/07/2021 – 30/6/2022” for specific details.