First-tier Tribunal Orders Refund of Overpaid Service Charges

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AC/LSC/2022/0062 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL] (Counsel) Respondent : [redacted] (2) [COMPANY] : [COUNSEL] (Counsel for second Respondent [COMPANY]) Type of application : Determination of the reasonableness and payability of service charges pursuant to S27A Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Mr [APPELLANT] B [APPELLANT] [NAME] Ms [NAME] [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing : 17 February 2023 Date of decision : 5 April 2023

DECISION

2 Decisions of the Tribunal 1 The Tribunal determines that the Applicants are due a refund of service charges as shown in table 1 below for overpaid service charges for the years 2014 to 2016 and 2021. The total refund is £4266.13. 2 The Tribunal conclude that the Respondents failed to comply with S47 and S48 of the 1987 Act on service of the Demands but any failure is now remedied. The service charge demands made of the tenants are now deemed valid pending the provision of the Rateable Value of the flats to the tenants. 3 The Tribunal determine that a S20 statutory consultation was not necessary or required for the expenditure in the relevant service charge years. The Application 4 The Applicants seek a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 ('the 1985 Act') and schedule 11 to the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ('the 2002 Act') as to the amount payable as a service charge and the reasonableness of the administration charges for years 2014-2016 and 2021. 5 The Applicants made an application to Tribunal dated 24 January 2022. Directions were subsequently issued and these identified that the Applicants disputed every single service charge cost for the relevant service charge years. A Case Management hearing was held on 8th September 2022 and matters in dispute were reduced to 95 separate items of expenditure, as set-out in a Scott schedule submitted jointly by the parties. Directions identified the following issues to be determined whether: i. The Landlord had complied with s.47 and s.48 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 ('the 1987 Act') when serving service charge demands . ii. The demands made by the Respondent were contractually valid. iii. The legal fees, company administration, secretarial fees and contributions to a reserve fund were payable under the lease. iv. The statutory consultation requirements for major works at the property had been satisfied. v. the payability and reasonableness of the disputed service and administration charges in the relevant service charge years. The Hearing 6 The Applicants were represented by Mr [COUNSEL], Counsel and Mr [COUNSEL] the co-Applicant, attended the Hearing and answered questions posed by Tribunal.

3 7 The Respondents were represented by Mr [COUNSEL], Counsel and Mr [COUNSEL], a Director of [COMPANY] also attended and provided oral evidence to Tribunal. 8 The Tribunal was told that the First Respondent is the freeholder. They have taken no active part in the proceedings. 9 The Second Respondent, the [COMPANY] acquired the right to manage [ADDRESS] in or around 2003. [COMPANY] trading as [NAME] were appointed as the managing agents of the [COMPANY] to manage the block at or around that time. The Applicants are members of the [COMPANY] and Mrs [NAME] was formerly a Director. 10 The Hearing was held by video. Mrs [APPELLANT] a co- applicant did not attend the hearing. 11 Neither party requested an inspection and the Tribunal did not consider one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute. The property 12 The subject property is a purpose built block of six flats. There is carparking to the front of the block and communal gardens to the rear. The law 13 The relevant legal provisions are set-out in the appendix to this Decision. 14 At the beginning of the Hearing the Tribunal asked the parties to review the matters in dispute. The Tribunal was told that the Respondents had accepted that, under the provisions of the lease the legal, company administration, secretarial fees and contributions to a reserve fund were not payable. The Respondents confirmed to Tribunal that any costs included in the service charges levied in the relevant years would be reimbursed to the Applicants. 15 It was then agreed that the matters in dispute remained those listed at items i, ii, iv and v at paragraph 4 of this Decision. Compliance with s. 47 and s 48 of the 1987 Act 16 The Tribunal heard from Mr [NAME] that to ensure statutory compliance a written service charge demand must include the landlord's name and address. He told Tribunal the demands issued by the Respondent [COMPANY] included no detail of the name or address of the landlord or intermediate landlord. 17 He argued that the [COMPANY] had assumed the repairing responsibilities of the landlord under the RTM agreement and that it held the forfeiture rights should the tenants fail to pay ground rent. These rights reflected the substantive interest of the [COMPANY] and a

4 justification for their details to be being provided on the service charge demand to satisfy statutory regulation. 18 Mr [NAME] referred Tribunal to [COMPANY] –v– [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [2012] UKUT 133 L&TR.23, in which it was held that the address of the landlord for the purposes of s.47(1) 'thus seems … to be the place where the landlord is to be found … in the case of a company it would be the company's registered office, or the place from which it carries on business'. Mr [NAME] accepted that the address given on the demand was not the landlord's address, because it was the registered office of the [COMPANY] or an address from which it carried on business. It was the address of the agents of the company who manage the subject property. Mr [NAME] argued that under the Right to Manage provisions, the [COMPANY] has acquired the right to manage and, therefore, is in effect the landlord and it was the address of the [COMPANY] which was required for service of notices. Findings of the Tribunal 19 The Tribunal has had regard to the authority [COMPANY] –v– [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] [2012] UKUT 133 and the Upper Tribunal Decision No 1 West India Quay ([COMPANY] –v– [COMPANY] [2021] EWCA Civ 1119 in the latter authority the Upper Tribunal described a failure to comply with the requirements of s.47(1) as 'suspensory only' in that any service charge or administration charge is treated as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before the information is furnished by the landlord by notice given to the tenant. 20 The Tribunal is told that the [COMPANY] has now provided to all tenants the name and registered address of the [COMPANY] and the name and registered address of [COMPANY]. Evidence of this service is provided in the bundle and in the Skeleton Argument submitted by Mr [NAME]. 21 The Tribunal conclude that the Respondents failed to comply with S47 and S48 of the 1987 Act on service of the Demands. This failure is now remedied and the served service charge demands made of the tenants are valid. Whether the demands are contractually valid 22 Mr [NAME] told Tribunal that, under the terms of the lease, the service charges are allocated according to the rateable value of Flat 4, in relation to the aggregate rateable value of the entire building. Mr [NAME] told Tribunal that the relevant rateable values were not provided to the Applicants, despite several requests from Mr [NAME] to the managing agents and [COMPANY]. 23 The Tribunal did enquire whether this had been done by letter and if there was any evidence included in the bundle of such requests having been

5 made. The Tribunal was told by the Applicants counsel the requests for the relevant rateable value had been made, but there was no documentary evidence in the bundle. 24 It was Counsel for the Applicants' view that the failure to provide the rateable value for Flat 4 undermined the validity of the demand, as no basis for the charges was provided. 25 Mr [NAME] disputed this claim. He said that the lease did not require the demand to specify any of this information. He said there was no provision in the lease requiring the rateable values for either the subject flat or the block to be provided to the tenant(s). 26 Mr [APPELLANT] referred Tribunal to Brent LBC –v– [APPELLANT] [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch) in which it was held that it was sufficient for the lessor to demand a specified sum stating that it is a “due proportion of the expenses” without separately stating the amount of the proportion and the amount of the expenses. Findings of the Tribunal 27 The Tribunal has carefully considered the authority submitted by Counsel for the Respondents relevant to this matter. It acknowledges that it is arguable that the lessor is only required to provide the sum chargeable on the demand is the due proportion of the expenses. 28 The Tribunal is not satisfied it is fair and equitable to apportion the service charges without presentation of the rateable values (RV) used in the calculation, as these are the principal determinants of the charges. The Tribunal are unable to reconcile the right of [NAME] to check the calculation and accuracy of service charge demanded. The failure to provide the RV hinders a tenants ability to confirm the charge is made in compliance with their contractual obligation under the lease provision. Only when the sum is verified as correct is the sum payable and this checking procedure requires the RV data. It must be available to the [COMPANY] and managing agent to calculate the apportionment and there is no practical explanation offered by the Respondent why this data is not revealed to all the tenants. 29 For these reasons the Tribunal determine it is reasonable for the lessor to provide to the tenants all relevant rateable values used in the service charge apportionment calculation. This should be done when the service charge demand is made. 30 The Tribunal determines the demands are not valid until this information is provided to the [NAME] but this deemed failure is suspensory only and that the service charge will be payable after provision of the rateable values. The alleged failure to carry out statutory consultation 31 Mr [NAME] referred Tribunal to the Scott schedule and, in particular, electrical works – items 3-9. Mr [NAME] argued that these works

6 collectively were expenditure which exceeded the statutory £250 threshold per [NAME] and, as a consequence, a statutory s.20 consultation should have been undertaken. 32 Mr [NAME] referred Tribunal to the specific dates and type of work. The dates fell during the early months of 2016 and were charges for electrical works, which included carrying out an electrical safety survey and subsequent repairs to electrical fittings. 33 It is alleged a consultation was not undertaken by the Respondents and there is no evidence in the bundle that a s.20 consultation was undertaken. 34 Counsel for the Respondents argued that these were different works and did not constitute a single programme of work for which consultation was appropriate. 35 Mr [NAME] provided an oral statement to Tribunal that explained the initial expenditure was on a safety inspection. Following the results of the safety inspection it was then necessary for repair works to be carried out. He explained that a number of these repair works followed almost 8 months after the initial electrical works. The Scott schedule identified costs incurred in August 2016 following the initial charges for electrical works made in January. Findings of the Tribunal 36 The test as to whether a statutory s.2o consultation should be undertaken is given in Phillips –v– Francis [2014] EWCH Civ 139. 37 The Tribunal has had regard to the type, timing and purpose of the works, in accordance with the guidance provided in this authority. 38 The Tribunal has considered the specific timing and purpose of the works and whether they were planned and intended to be carried out as a single entity. There is no compelling evidence that the works were designed to be an single scheme. The Tribunal has looked at the dates and type of work. They are separate items, linked, but not designed as a single electrical refurbishment scheme. 39 The Tribunal therefore determines the electrical works did not constitute a scheme and therefore the s.20 threshold of £250 was not reached in respect of any of the works. 40 A statutory consultation was not necessary or appropriate for the collection of works identified by Counsel for the Applicant. Payability and reasonableness of the services charges listed in the Scott schedule 41 At Appendix B is a Scott schedule which lists the 65 items in dispute for the Tribunal to determine. This is reduced from the original 95 items disputed in the application.

7 42 The total sum in dispute is £22,101 over 4 service charge years . It would not be practicable to make detailed descriptive finding on each item in dispute. The Tribunal has provided some comments for several of the items listed in the Appendices. 43 After some deliberation the parties agreed at the hearing the sums in dispute are as follows: i. 2014 £8,098.00 ii. 2015 £9,324.80 iii. 2016 £3,755.00 iv. 2021 £923.64 44 The schedule attached at Appendix B is an agreed schedule. The findings made by Tribunal about payability and reasonableness follow the submissions made at the hearing. The amounts disputed were agreed at the hearing by Counsel following discussion between the parties about the disputed service charge items. 45 A number of service charges included in the original submission were subsequently withdrawn by the Applicants at the hearing. A number of other revisions to the claim were made after conversations between the parties' representatives during recess from the hearing. 46 The Tribunal are asked specificality about the payability of service charges for repairs to the balcony of flat 1 at item 9 of the Schedule, drain repair costs at item 38 and the electricity costs for the common parts. 47 The Tribunal accept the balcony do not fall within the demise of the flat. The lease plan is not clear and there is no specific provision that demises the balcony structure to the [NAME]. The repair costs are deemed landlords repairing obligations and payable under service charge provision. Clause 2(2) (iii) a. of the lease at page 70 of the bundle is the relevant provision. 48 No evidence was adduced to specify the location of the blocked drain. In the absence of such evidence it must be assumed the drain clean out cost at item 38 is for removal of a blockage to the service drains that serves the property. This is a landlord liability under the lease provision at Clause 2(2) iii a. that refers to costs of “maintaining … the “mains drains” as included in relevant service charges. 49 The communal electricity charges are referred to in the lease as payable at clause 2(2) (iii) c. The Tribunal determine the reference in the lease to “including the cleaning and lighting therof” provides for lighting costs of the common areas within the service charge. 50 The sums payable is shown at Appendix B.

8 Service Charge Year Sum payable and reasonable (£) Scott Schedule items 2014 £7052.00 1-16 2015 £7825.80 17-35, 38-39 2016 £2156.15 40-46, 48-57 2021 £801.36 60-63,83, 88,91

51. The reasonableness of the charges is determined on the basis of the submissions made by parties and the knowledge and experience of the Tribunal in these matters. Name: [NAME]: 5 April 2023

Valuer Chairman

9 Appendix A RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

2. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application.

3. If the application is not made within the 28 day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

Appendix of relevant legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18 (1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by [NAME] of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent -

(a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs. (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose -

(a) "costs" includes overheads, and

10 (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period -

(a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard;

and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. Section 27A (1) An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to -

(a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An application may also be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to -

(a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (4) No application under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which -

(a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant,

11 (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post- dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. Section 20 (1) Where this section applies to any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement, the relevant contributions of tenants are limited in accordance with subsection (6) or (7) (or both) unless the consultation requirements have been either—

(a) complied with in relation to the works or agreement, or (b) dispensed with in relation to the works or agreement by (or on appeal from) the appropriate tribunal . (2) In this section “relevant contribution”, in relation to [NAME] and any works or agreement, is the amount which he may be required under the terms of his lease to contribute (by the payment of service charges) to relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement. (3) This section applies to qualifying works if relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works exceed an appropriate amount. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that this section applies to a qualifying long term agreement—

(a) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement exceed an appropriate amount, or (b) if relevant costs incurred under the agreement during a period prescribed by the regulations exceed an appropriate amount. (5) An appropriate amount is an amount set by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following to be an appropriate amount—

(a) an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and (b) an amount which results in the relevant contribution of any one or more tenants being an amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations. (6) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (5), the amount of the relevant costs incurred on carrying out the works or under the agreement which may be taken into account in determining the relevant contributions of tenants is limited to the appropriate amount.

12 (7) Where an appropriate amount is set by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, the amount of the relevant contribution of the tenant, or each of the tenants, whose relevant contribution would otherwise exceed the amount prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations is limited to the amount so prescribed or determined.] Section 20B (1) If any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge were incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment of the service charge is served on the tenant, then (subject to subsection (2)), the tenant shall not be liable to pay so much of the service charge as reflects the costs so incurred. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if, within the period of 18 months beginning with the date when the relevant costs in question were incurred, the tenant was notified in writing that those costs had been incurred and that he would subsequently be required under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge. Section 20C (1) [NAME] may make an application for an Order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court, residential property tribunal or the Upper Tribunal, or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the application. (2) The application shall be made—

(a) in the case of court proceedings, to the court before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court; (aa) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to that tribunal; (b) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to the tribunal before which the proceedings are taking place or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, to any residential property tribunal; (c) in the case of proceedings before the Upper Tribunal, to the tribunal; (d) in the case of arbitration proceedings, to the arbitral tribunal or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, to a county court. (3) The court or tribunal to which the application is made may make such Order on the application as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.

13

Section 21B

(1) A demand for the payment of a service charge must be accompanied by a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to service charges.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing requirements as to the form and content of such summaries of rights and obligations.

(3) [NAME] may withhold payment of a service charge which has been demanded from him if subsection (1) is not complied with in relation to the demand.

(4) Where [NAME] withholds a service charge under this section, any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of service charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it.

(5) Regulations under subsection (2) may make different provision for different purposes.

(6) Regulations under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The Service Charges (Summary of Rights and Obligations, and Transitional Provision) (England) Regulations 2007

14 Regulation 3 relates to the “Form and Content of Summary of Rights and Obligation”. Where these Regulations apply, the summary of rights and obligations which must accompany a demand for the payment of a service charge must be legible in a typewritten or printed form of at least 10 point, and must contain (a) the title “Service Charges — Summary of tenants' rights and obligations”; and (b) the statement set out in subparagraph (b).

15 Appendix B Appendix B: Scott Schedule with Tribunal Findings Appendix B: SCOTT SCHEDULE WITH FINDINGS FLAT 4

EDGWAREBURY LANE’ [NAME], MIDDLESEX HAA8 8LP CASE REFERENCE LON/ooAC/LSC/2022/006 DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDING 2015-2016 and 2021 ITEM COST £ DATE TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS TRIBUNAL FINDING SUM Payable and Reasonable (£) 1. 2 1,500 03/06/14 [NAME] These costs were not agreed upon and, in any case, excessive given the writer is not a surveyor nor duly qualified to draw up such specification. We don’t not believe the writer is in fact a surveyor. £300 These costs were to provide the contractors, with a specification, so that they could all quote on a like for like basis.

There were two options for tarmacadem & block paving and the specification was technically exacting and correct to a professional standard.

The costs were reasonably 1000

16 incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ‘1 – [ADDRESS] – Specification’

2. 3 1,300 10/12/14 [NAME] These costs were charged five days prior to the works commencement. Although the later invoice for £22500 appears to include the same work

£TBC This cost relates to different works.

The £22,500 referred to was for the block paving project to the forecourts.

This cost is for the rebuilding of the rear manhole chamber which was collapsing. The block paving project / quotes did not include the rebuilding of the collapsed manhole chamber.

It was completed by the same company who carried out the driveway repairs but is a different set of works.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

1300

17 3. 5 300 06/01/14 ILS Electrical condition reports

This invoice appears to relate to the communal EICR however 4 days later electrical works were carried out to the communal area requiring a new NIC certificate, therefore this NIC was not valid. The managing agents have not sent the NIC certificate, please submit a copy.

£0 When an EICR is carried out at a property it will either come back as ‘unsatisfactory’ or ‘satisfactory’. As this came back that work was required and failed, we had to get the electrical maintenance works carried out for the safety of the residents at the block. The initial inspection and report are chargeable in any event, irrespective of whether further remedial works are required or not. The contractor charged £250 + vat for 2 separate reports (as the property has 2 separate entrances). It is our contention that the costs are reasonable and were reasonably incurred.

Please see attached document labelled ‘3,4 & 5 – ILS Emails’

300 4.

1,008 09/01/14 ILS Consumer units and 5 light fittings

These works and the above + below item appear to be one job in which case section 20 consultation should have been These works were completed following on from the EICR that was carried out to bring it back to a satisfactory level.

The consumer units and 5 light fittings were replaced as 1,008

18 consulted upon and was not.

This is not the first time works requiring S20 consultation have been split in what is to avoid consulting with us.

£0 they would have been against the health and safety regulations for the residents.

The S.20 consultation process was not required due to the remedial cost being below the s20 threshold.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

5. 7 912 09/01/14 ILS Two sockets, 6 time lag switches and 3 exterior light fittings with motion detectors

As above these works should have been consulted upon. It remains unclear as to why the same contractor issued two separate invoices on the same day for the same address

£0 These works were independent from the EICR requirements. These were for regular repairs and maintenance around the building that had been instructed prior to the EICR being carried out, and the quote we received was below the s20 threshold and as such not part of a set of works to remedy deficiencies highlighted in the EICR report. The costs are modest compared to the work carried £750

19 out. The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

6. 8 132 08/07/14 [NAME] replace one push switch. Should this have been considered a warrantee repair replacement after less than 6 months

£100 6 months earlier we only replaced the 6 broken switches that were not working. There were historically 8 switches, 1 outside each flat front door and one beside each of the main front doors to the block. ILS had only changed 6 of the 8 switches as two were still working fine at the time. This cost was to change another switch which subsequently stopped working.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

100 7. 9 252 29/08/14 Faulty communal lighting. Replace light fitting and time lag switch This item was carried out by the same contractor a few weeks earlier. The work done is in the other entrance compared to the [NAME] job. This was the 8th switch to be replaced – which had not been replaced previously as it was working 150

20

£0 fine when the others were replaced.

The cost is modest for a call out and replacing a switch and programming the timing.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

8. 10 90 14/02/14 [NAME] to supply and fit Management Plaque. This is a Managing Agents cost and not part of the service charges, not required or requested by the lessees.

Separately having checked the VAT number listed on the invoice, it shows as “INVALID”

£0 This cost is for a plaque to be displayed outside the property to state that we are the Managing Agents & provide our contact details, this was to supply and install the plaque. This helps the first responders & passers-by obtain our information if an emergency was to happen and could not get into the block, so they know who to contact.

It should be noted from the attached email trail that we had supplied and fitted a set of plaques at no charge initially, but they were torn down and disposed of. Whilst we have no 90

21 proof of who tore them down we certainly have our suspicions. In any event we had to replace them and on the second occasion we charged a very modest charge to cover the costs.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ‘8 – Plaque Email’

9. 11 1,158 19/06/14 BDM Treatment to balcony of flat 1

The managing agents previously informed us the balcony’s do not form the part of the managed areas and such previously requested we carry out works ourselves however it appears we are charged for flat 1?

£TBC

The Balconies are part of the structure of the building and as such fall within the Landlords repairing and maintain covenants and are recoverable via the service charge account.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

1158 10. 12 620 08/08/14 Clear drain fix high level leaks and change section of downpipe

This cost was not just to clear drains and involved a more complex & involved set of 370

22 This is overpriced even at today’s rate – Clear Drains £120 High Level Leak £100 Downpipe Replacement £150

Total £370

works.

These works took 2 x workmen to carry out and involved gaining access to a high level area to repair the leaks, as [NAME] has to stand at the bottom of the ladder to secure it whilst the other climbed the ladder to do the work in order to comply with the “working at heights” legislation.

For labour and materials, we believe £620 is a reasonable cost.

The costs were reasonably incurred.

Please see attached document labelled ’10 – Email & Photos – Drain & Leak Clearance’.

11. 13 540 18/09/14 Fencing repair front elevation

There was no new fence installed and none of the supposed work is evident. We attach a photo to support our opinion that in fact There is a low wall at the front of the property. There were a number of sections where the posts were loose as well. One section of fence was missing and was replaced, and a new 540

23 no work was carried out. This is overpriced for the works supposedly undertaken.

£0

post was supplied and fitted in concrete on the side fence. The works were primarily to secure what was there existing at the time, The cost of said works is very modest. Please see emails and photos attached from the time of the work.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’11 – Front Fence Replacement – Emails & Photos’.

12. 21 130 30/06/14 Payment to [NAME] flat 5 Unidentified service payment

£0 [NAME] was the tenant in flat 5 and she would clean the common parts.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

130 13. 22 90 15/10/14 Payment to [NAME] flat 5 Unidentified service payment

£0 [APPELLANT] was the tenant in flat 5 and she would clean the common parts.

The costs were reasonably 90

24 incurred and reasonable in cost.

14. 29 11.05 30/04/14 E.ON Electricity 1-2 Previously invoiced

£0 We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts.

In anticipation of the hearing, we took a meter reading and provided it to the current energy supplier so we can balance out any payments, 11.05

25 however we were advised that smart meters are installed at the property, so the bills are always accurate.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’14 – Electricity Emails’

15. 30 38.57 09/04/14 E.ON Electricity 3-6 Previously invoiced

£0 We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There 38.57

26 doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts.

In anticipation of the hearing, we took a meter reading and provided it to the current energy supplier so we can balance out any payments, however we were advised that smart meters are installed at the property, so the bills are always accurate.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

16. 37 16.38 19/11/14 E.ON Electricity 1-2 Previously invoiced £0

We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out 16.38

27 the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’14 – Electricity

28 Emails’

TOTAL 7,052 17. 43 2,700 29/01/15 [COMPANY] section 20 driveway supervision fees. This charge is excessive and was not agreed upon. It remains unclear the extent of [NAME]’s supervision work as charged and whether the person supervising was duly Qualified to do so.

£400 These were very extensive and complicated works which took up many man hours to oversee each day and ensure work was being done to a high standard. The market rate for supervision varies from 10% - 15% of the project costs. We charged 10% + vat which is modest & in line with the Management Agreement that was agreed between the [NAME] and the managing agent.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

2000 18. 44 360 27/11/14 [NAME], fix only electric cable to garage and gates

There was no need or authority to carry out these works and its unclear as to why these were works were requested and possibly carried out

At the time, Mr [NAME] met with Mr [NAME] in our office & he had suggested that a future project to enhance the security and look of the building would be to install gates, and he pointed to a recent new development just up the road as an example. Mr 360

29 £0 [NAME] agreed with Mr [NAME] and suggested that as the driveway would be replaced it made sense to lay the cables now so as to avoid the need and the cost to raise the driveway at a later stage. Mr [NAME] agreed to this approach at the time.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’18 – Electric Gates Email’

19. 45

20. 46 850 02/02/15 Drain clean and fix FB2 locks to storage areas

These works are extremely over priced. There is no indication on the invoice as to why the investigation was carried out. Having obtained prices at today’s rate, the cost to investigate would be £90 + VAT . The FB2 locks are £26 for two. The competency of the contractor is unclear for We noted that the drains at the back of the property were overflowing with sewage. The contractor is a general builder who specialises in plumbing and drainage, and we have used them for many years at many properties.

Whilst on site they also put two FB locks on the storage cupboards under the stairs to 250

30 the job required.

FB2 - £26 DRAIN CLEAN £0

prevent the residents from storing their personal belongings therein which could be a fire hazard.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’20 – Drain Clearance & FB Lock’

21. 48 1500 26/02/15 [NAME] two cupboards Extent and cost of the works required a section 20 notice

£0 The cost of the works would have to exceed £250 per flat for this to require a Section 20.

These charges do not exceed the s20 threshold.

The cost also included painting the woodwork including banisters etc with intumescent paint.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

1500

22. 49 750 26/02/15 [NAME], Rubbish The cost is modest as it 750

31 clearance, electrical repairs to lighting and smoke detectors, safety barriers to windows and painting communal areas. No clear details given as to electrical repairs (as they are not an NICEIC Electrical contractor they are unable to carry out electrical works) Images should be provided for the waste removed.

Smoke detectors were already installed and were replaced during the section 20 work.

£0 includes a number of small jobs. The combined charge is below the s20 threshold. Whenever the contractor deals with any electrical work they use subcontractors who are of course suitably regulated.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

23. 50 137.09 27/03/15 [NAME] and fix H & S signage No other details given as to where and what signage was for

£0 This relates to the standard H&S signage that was required as a result of the FRA and was placed in the common parts of both blocks.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

137.09 24. 51 130 20/05/15 Recycle City remove goods from carpark The goods/refuse were reported to the Property 130

32

No description as to “goods” Further evidence should be provided.

£TBC Manager, who then instructed the refuse removal company to attend and remove it.

The items may have been dumped by a [NAME] or a resident sub tenant. Alternatively, as the block is open to the street, random people have previously dumped stuff as well. Irrespective of who dumps it, we need to arrange to have it cleared.

We do not always get photos emailed to us, but we do have some that have been saved to the system. The absence of photos does not mean that it didn’t happen, and there is no obligation to get photos each time it happens.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’24 – Dumped Rubbish’

33

25. 52 220 07/06/15 [NAME] [NAME] door closure hinges No block or location details given

£TBC The residents / sub tenants reported problems with the front door not closing properly. The contactor changed the hinges and the hydraulic door closer to ensure the safety of the occupants.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

220 26. 53 120 28/08/15 [NAME] unblock drain pipe 26/08 – there are many separate supposed works carried out to the drains and high level gutters, much of these are disputed and are overpriced in any case. There is no justification been provided as to why such expenditure were incurred.

£TBC The reason for the repair was due to blockages in the down pipes reported at the property.

These were often reported by the residents. The challenge refers to works done to “Drains” and “High Level Gutters”, both of which are quite separate. This invoice only relates to a blocked down pipe. The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document 120

34 labelled ’26 – Downpipe Clearance’

27. 54 240 28/08/15 [NAME] high level gutter repairs 27/08

As above

£TBC We received reports of leaking gutters and instructed the contractor to attend and resolve the issue. The contractor attended the day before and dealt with the down pipe issue that was initially reported. He advised that when on site he noted a problem with the guttering and would return the next day to attend to it as he had run out of time and not expected to deal with that additional issue when he initially attended.

We have attached photos that show that there are trees in close proximity on three sides of the block which are taller that the building and its gutters. As such, leaves and debris regularly fall into the gutters and block them, which causes the gutters to overflow when it rains. This necessitates the need to 240

35 regularly clear the gutters when we get reports from the residents. On a number of occasions, we have also carried out repairs to parts of the gutters in addition to clearance.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’27 High Level Gutter Repairs’

28. 55 396 28/10/15 [NAME] replace 2 security lights

These lights were already replaced by ILS contractors on 9/1/14.

£0 There are a number of different security / PIR lights at the property. It is not necessarily the case that the lights addressed by this invoice are the same as those dealt with by ILS previously as suggested.

But even if they were, any warranty would have run out long ago – this work was carried out a year and 10 months later.

396

36 The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

29. 56 228 10/11/15 [NAME] replace trace fault internal lighting and replace fittings No block or location details given, furthermore these were also replaced on 9/1/14

£0 There are a number of different lights at the property. It is not necessarily the case that the lights addressed by this invoice are the same as those dealt with by ILS previously as suggested. But even if they were, any warranty would have run out long ago – this work was carried out a year and 11 months later.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

228 30. 57 288 14/10/15 [NAME] 5, trace electrical fault internal lighting and replace fittings leak from flat This is a recharge to the [NAME] who had the leak is not a communal charge

£0 Flat 5 suffered a leak from flat 6 above. The repairs and reinstatement to flat 5 could have been done via an insurance claim, however we took the decision to “self- insure” as it did not make commercial sense to make a claim for such a small sum and then have to pay a higher 150

37 premium upon renewal.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost. 31. 58 300 25/11/15 [COMPANY] remove dumped furniture.

This is disputed - they are not waste collectors and in any case its excessive.

Separately we believe [NAME] is in fact an associated company to Mr [NAME] and we attach proof of our assertion.

£TBC Please see attached photo of reported rubbish.

Hammer & Chisel is not an associated company. When they first started, they rented a small office at one of the investment properties owned by one of Mr [NAME] investment companies. Mr [NAME] is neither a shareholder nor Director of Hammer & Chisel. We occasionally give them work much like we do many other unrelated companies. The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’31 – Dumped Furniture’

300 32. 59 60 22/01/15 Payment to [APPELLANT] flat 5 Unidentified service [APPELLANT] was the tenant in flat 5 and she would clean the 60

38 payment

£0 common parts.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

33. 63 390 24/07/15 Estate Maintenance cleaning May – June

Communal clean has now increased from £42 twice a month to £65 – it is unclear why. Why terminate the contract with Riverclean to only proceed with a contractor more expensive? Separately, the accounts provided list the total cleaning expenditure for 2015 £1538 however the total bills provided for is £1478. Furthermore, July, October and December were billed twice which total to an additional £300 over paid.

£42 – Cleaning We briefly used [NAME], but they were unreliable and whilst they were very cheap their work was of a commensurate level.

We got two quotes for new service providers, from [COMPANY] & from [COMPANY] who were slightly cheaper of the two.

Please see attachment labelled ’33 – MAPP Cleaning Quote’

We chose to pay a market rate and get a better and more professional job done by [COMPANY] going forward.

We cannot see that October & December were billed twice. We paid for every visit to the 250

39 property.

The small difference in the expenditure is due to the pre- payments & accruals accounting regime.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

34. 68 476.25 17/06/15 [NAME] 5 visits 27/04 – 22/06/15

[NAME] charged £40 per visit for the same level of work. [NAME] is priced at £95.25. Why terminate the [NAME] contractor to proceed with a more expensive contractor?

[NAME] has provided a quote to carry out the same and in fact better service for a total of £60 Per vist. Please see attached.

Accounts provided list the total [NAME] expenditure as £1524, however the invoices provided We briefly used [NAME], but they were unreliable and whilst they were very cheap their work was of a commensurate level.

Please see attachment labelled ’34 – [NAME]’

We chose to pay a market rate and get a better and more professional job done by [NAME] going 476.25

40 for total £1478. There was further 3 charges In August when It should have been 2. Accordingly the total [NAME] expenditure should have been £1383.

[NAME] £40 Per visit. forward.

We paid for every visit to the property.

The contractor typically comes every two weeks and due to the diary, that works out 3 visits in August.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

35. 81 38.46 22/06/15 [NAME] 1-2 Previously invoiced £0

We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the

38.46

41 meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts.

It should be noted that there are 2 invoices from SSE in the bundle for the same amount of £38.46, but one is for block 1- 2 and the other is for block 3- 6. This is a fluke / coincidence and nothing more. The bill has not been paid twice.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

36. 86

37. 92

38. 102 100 26/01/16 [NAME] blocked This was an issue that was 100

42 drains problems flat 3 – Why was this charged to the SC account?

£0 reported by flat 3 rather than an issue that was caused by flat 3.

The contractor advised us that the drains were blocked due to a build-up of debris.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

39. 103 120 08/02/15 Hammer & Chisel Rubbish removal

Evidence should be provided.

£TBC This relates to refuse being removed from site that was dumped either by a [NAME] or as it is an open block, the public could have dumped it and therefore it is our responsibility to have it removed. Please see pictures of refuse that was onsite.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost

Please see attached document labelled ’39 – Dumped Items’ 120 40.

TOTAL 7825.80

43 41. 104 100 01/10/16 M A Premier Property Rubbish clearance - as above

£TBC This relates to refuse being removed from site that was either dumped by a [NAME] or as it is an open block, the public could have dumped it and therefore it is our responsibility to have it removed.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’40 – Rubbish Removal – 01.10.16’ 100 42. 105 120 14/11/16 M A Premier Property Rubbish clearance - as above

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

120

44 Please see attached document labelled ’41 – Rubbish Removal – 14.11.16’

43. 106

44. 107 210 04/04/16 Hammer & Chisel Supply and fit dummy security cameras – When actual cctv cameras were installed by ourselves these were removed without good reason yet the [NAME] have incurred and expense to place dummy cameras? Why? See attached correspondence

In an attempt to deter people dumping rubbish as well as other anti-social behaviour we installed dummy CCTV cameras

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost. 210 45. 108 240 14/04/16 Hammer &Chisel Problems with lighting, replace time switch - - Yet again - this has been changed multiple times – changed on 9/1/14 – 8/7/14 – and again on 29/08/14 nor does the invoice mention which block these supposed works were at? These works were carried out over two years later to the lighting/time switch being replaced.

The cost is modest for a call out to attend to a fault with the lighting, replacing a switch and programming the timing.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

240 46. 109 330 14/04/16 Carringtons Bld Clear blocked drains The drains regularly get blocked as residents flush wet 330

45

Despite all the supposed drainage works carried out, this expense continues on.

£0 wipes, sanitary products and babies nappies down the toilet. We have frequently written to the residents advising that these items are not meant to be flushed down the toilet and should be bagged and binned instead. When we get a report or observe a blocked drain, we need to call a contactor to clear the drains. Sometimes the drain can be cleared swiftly at a modest cost and sometimes the blockage is stubborn and requires more work which attracts a higher charge.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost. 47. 111 600 01/07/16 [COMPANY] repairs Similar repairs caried out in 2015 yet we are informed these were replaced again? The invoice states the trellis were also replaced yet the fence comes as one piece. Photo evidence prove none were replaced. In 2015 we made various repairs to both the front and side fences. This work is the replacement of the side fence as the old fence came down The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

600

46

£0 Please see attached document labelled ’46 – Repairs To Fence’

48. 113

49. 114 50 Un dated invoice,p aid 13/09/16 [COMPANY] repairs to high level guttering

£0 As per our [NAME] photos that show that there are trees in close proximity on three sides of the block which are taller that the building and its gutters. As such, leaves and debris regularly fall into the gutters and block them, which causes the gutters to overflow when it rains. This necessitates the need to regularly clear the gutters when we get reports from the residents. On a number of occasions, we have also carried out repairs to parts of the gutters in addition to clearance.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

50 50. 130 100 14/11/16 Dispute there was dumped rubbish

We believe this line item has been incorrectly listed by Mr [NAME], we believe it is a 100

47 £0 duplication of line item 41 whereby he has listed £100 when the correct invoice is £100 + VAT and we have provided the evidence for. 51. 132 381.00 03/02/16 [NAME] 4 visits 07/12 – 10/02/16 These visits are well outside the standard [NAME] contracts very late in the year for any [NAME] maintenance

£TBC This invoice relates to the maintenance of the [NAME] area, sweeping at the front and through to the back of the block.

As previously stated, it is an open block so very often rubbish will be blown onto the property.

We would then instruct [NAME] to attend on an extra visit and clear the rubbish/sweep down the front.

We believe this is a modest cost for the works carried out.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

381 52. 133 190.50 7/10/15 [NAME] 2 visits on Monday, Details all left blank, No date or invoice number This invoice relates to the maintenance of the [NAME] area, sweeping at the front and 0

48 or details given

£TBC through to the back of the block.

We believe this is a modest cost for the works carried out.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’51 – [NAME]’

53. 135 476.25 No date or month given [NAME] 5 visits on Monday, Details all left blank, No date or invoice number or details given

As previously stated, it is an 0

49 open block so very often rubbish will be blown onto the property,

We believe this is a modest cost for the works carried out.

Please see attached document labelled ’51 – [NAME]’

54. 136 190.50 23/11/15 [NAME] 2 visits on Monday, Details all left blank, No date or invoice number or details given

We would then instruct [NAME] to attend on an extra visit and clear the 0

50 rubbish/sweep down the front.

We believe this is a modest cost for the works carried out.

Please see attached document labelled ’51 – [NAME]’

55. 137 381 17/05/16 [NAME] 4 visits 11/04 – 23/05/16 Invoiced before works were completed This invoice relates to the maintenance of the [NAME] area, sweeping at the front and through to the back of the block, cutting down overgrown bushes etc.

We believe this is a modest cost for the works carried out. 0 56. 138 381 05/07/15 [NAME] 2 visits 06/06 – 18/07/16 Invoiced before works were completed This invoice relates to the maintenance of the [NAME] area, sweeping at the front and through to the back of the block, cutting down overgrown bushes etc.

We believe this is a modest cost for the works carried out. 0 57. 139 762 19/09/16 [NAME] 8 visits between 06/06 – 12/09/16, 4 of which have been previously invoiced 06/06 – 18/07/16 We have asked [NAME] to refund the 3 invoices that they double charged in error and they have 0

51

£TBC refunded the money to the service charge account. If we are to concede the point we will remove the refunded funds from the service charge account so that there is not a double credit given to Mr [NAME].

58. 145 25.15 [NAME] 1-2 Statement relating to a [NAME] invoice £0 We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts. 25.15

52

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

59. 152

60. 322

61. 323 425 26/02/21 4 Site Health and Safety and Fire Risk Assessment Is this type of inspection required on an annual basis A Health, Safety & Fire Risk Assessment is a legal requirement to be carried out.

This helps the managing agent understand the health and fire hazards within the block so we can have them rectified and the relevant works carried out.

This cost is modest for a fire risk report to be carried out. 425 62. 324 21.76 /02/21 [NAME] 3-6 Previously invoiced

£0 We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out 21.76

53 the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

Please see attached document labelled ’14 – Electricity

54 Emails’

63. 325 22.10 /01/21 [NAME] 3-6 Previously invoiced £0 We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts.

In anticipation of the hearing, we took a meter reading and provided it to the current energy supplier so we can balance out any payments, however we were advised that 22.10

55 smart meters are installed at the property, so the bills are always accurate.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

64. 326 20.50 /01/21 [NAME] 1-2 Previously invoiced £0 We cannot see that the bill was previously paid. We do not believe it was. However, if we are wrong on that point, the nature of utility billing means that if an error occurred and an invoice was paid twice then the account would balance out the next month when the next invoice was raised. It is clear from the invoices that the electricity company read the meters fairly regularly as stated on their invoices. Had there been an error one month it would have been reflected on the next months invoice and cancelled out. There doesn’t appear to be any 20.50

56 evidence of this at all. There was no double billing as per the year end accounts.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

65. 327

66. 328

67. 329 22.10 /11/20

68. 330 20/86 /11/20

69. 331 22.01 /12/20

70. 332 20.94 /12/20

71. 333 21.85 /09/20

72. 334 20.87 /09/20

57 73. 335 20.92 /08/20

74. 336 21.81 /07/20

75. 337 20.98 /07/20

76. 338 21.59 /06/20

77. 339 20.87 /06/20

78. 340 21.78 /05/20

79. 341 21.03 /05/20

80. 342 21.49 /04/20

81. 343 21.09 /04/20

82. 344 21.59 /03/20

83. 345 21.59 /03/20

84. 346 2,000 08/03/21 157.49 not payable 1842.90 – not challenged

85. 357 385 10/11/20

86. 358 720 17/11/20

87. 359 220 29/05/20

88. 360

89. 361 312 27/01/21 [NAME] blocked drains Have now charged VAT

No completed £0 The drains regularly get blocked as residents flush wet wipes down the toilet. We have frequently written to the residents advising that these items are not meant to be flushed down the toilet and should be bagged and binned instead. When we get a report or observe a blocked drain, we need to call a contactor to 312

58 clear the drains. Sometimes the drain can be cleared swiftly at a modest cost and sometimes the blockage is stubborn and requires more work which attracts a higher charge.

The costs were reasonably incurred and reasonable in cost.

[NAME] were not VAT Registered. They advised us that at one point there were forced to register for VAT, - until their accountant were able to take the necessary steps to de- register

90. 362

91. 363

92. 371 122.28 04/01/21 [COMPANY] G1 visit 14/12 late for any form of [NAME] maintenance

This invoice relates to the maintenance of the [NAME] area, sweeping at the front and through to the back of the block, cutting down overgrown bushes etc.

As previously stated, it is an 0

59

open block so very often rubbish will be blown onto the property.

We believe this is a modest cost for the works carried out. 93. 377

94. 378

95. 380

95.

TOTAL 801.36