First-tier Tribunal Rejects Landlord's Costs in Service Charges

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BK/LSC/2025/0827 Property : 8 Artillery Low, London [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] the application) Representative : [NAME_2], counsel Respondent : [redacted] : [NAME_5] of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge [NAME_6] [NAME_7]

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 20 – 22 January 2026 25 February 2026

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision (2) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 prohibiting the respondent from adding its costs of this application to the service charges. ________________________________________________ The application 1. The applicants seek a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”)] as to the amount of service charges and (where applicable) administration charges payable by the applicants in respect of the service charge years 2017 to 2024. The background 2. The property which is the subject of this application is a mixed-use [NAME_8] close to Westminster Cathedral. It consists of 22 residential units, together with a small car park and a ground floor retail unit. The communal areas are relatively small, with an entrance lobby and a landing on each floor, each landing serving three apartments on seven floors. There is also a penthouse at the top of the [NAME_8]. (‘the [NAME_8]’).

3. The applicants each hold a long lease of their respective property which requires the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge. The specific provisions of the lease(s) will be referred to below, where appropriate.

4. The respondent to the application is [COMPANY_3], the freeholder and landlord of the [NAME_8] (‘[NAME_3]’) and the managing agent for the [NAME_8] is [COMPANY_9] (‘[NAME_9]’).

5. There is a recognised tenant’s association, [NAME_1] Residents Association of which [NAME_10] (former tenant and non- leaseholder) is the chairperson. The Hearing 6. The applicants were represented by [NAME_2], counsel at the hearing and the respondent was represented by [NAME_5].

3 7. Neither party requested an inspection and the tribunal did not consider that one was necessary due to the nature of the issues in dispute and the comprehensive bundle of 5771 digital pages that was provided. This included a witness statement of [NAME_10] dated 19 December 2025 and [NAME_11] (leaseholder) dated 19 December 2025, who both gave oral evidence to the tribunal.

8. An additional witness statement of [NAME_10] dated 16 January 2026 was also provided to the tribunal. This late evidence was subject to an application for permission for its late admission. This was not objected to by the respondent, in so far as it the statement served only to update the tribunal and was not utilised to introduce ‘new’ issues or evidence. After consideration of this application, the tribunal determined it would be reasonable to allow the applicants to rely upon this further witness statement, to the extent it served as an update of the current situation between the parties.

9. The respondents sought to rely on the written and oral evidence of [NAME_12], Mechanical Director with the Heat Interface Team, dated 18 July 2025; [NAME_13], Director of [NAME_9] dated 19 December 2025; [NAME_14], Operations Director of [NAME_15] and [NAME_16] (undated) and [NAME_17], Manager of [COMPANY_25] (undated). The issues 10. At the start of the hearing, the applicants identified the relevant issues

for determination as set out in a table form in the witness statement

of [NAME_10] in the table below, with the amounts claimed

having been pro-rated to the applicant leaseholders.

Category Reason for deduction Years contested Amount claimed 1.Heat and hot water - [NAME_16] Leaseholder invoiced more than fair cost of providing service 2017 to 2024 £48,894 2.Electricity communal Overcharging 2017 to 2024 £413,200

4 3.Cooling charges -[NAME_16] charging 2017 to 2024 £36,549 4.CHP generator Heating and electricity credits 2017 to 2024 £100,951 5.[NAME_18] maintenance Demised to flats 2017 to 2024 £252,612 6.Roof repair costs Not fully claimed on insurance 2017 to 2024 £51,825 7.Major leak 2021 Not fully claimed on insurance 2017 to 2024 £22,116 8.Terrorism & Insurance cover Leaseholders not notified 2017 to 2024 £57,284 9.[NAME_24] cover Unfair and excessive 2017 to 2024 £6,159 10.Insurance commissions Unfair and excessive 2023 to 2024 (No figure provided) 11.[NAME_8] insurance Credits from 10 AR and retail not evidenced, recalculation of share 2017 to 2024 £81,542 12.[NAME_27] and calculation not transparent 2017 to 2024 £152,916 13.Interim professional charges Excessive charge 2021£73,134 £73,134 14.Legal & Professional Fees Not recoverable under BSA 2022 2022 £26,658

5 15.Management fees Mismanagement 2017 to 2024 £76,475 16.General Maintenance costs Excessive charges 2020 to 2022 £14,798

Heating and hot water - [NAME_16] 11. The applicants informed the tribunal that leaseholders do not have

individual gas boilers and are billed for heat and hot water by [COMPANY_16] on behalf of [NAME_3]. [NAME_16] is the company the

respondent has contracted with since 2023 to bill demands for payment.

The applicants asserted that the [NAME_16] tariffs for heating and

hot water materially exceed [NAME_3]’s underlying gas costs. At the same

time, comfort-cooling standing charges had increased and electricity

costs were fully paid through the service charges and therefore, there was

‘double recovery’ of these charges 12. The applicants told the tribunal that ‘cooling’ runs on electricity only,

and the full cost of the [NAME_8]’s electricity charges are paid through the

service charges. However, there is nothing in the lease terms that allows

[NAME_3] to take a proportion of the cost of utilities as an overhead. Instead,

the leaseholders are required to pay for the costs of their utilities to [NAME_3]

via the demands made by [NAME_16] on its behalf. Further, [NAME_16] should issue a report reconciling payments collected from the

dwellings against the actual costs incurred in supplying heat and water

But [NAME_3] has never disclosed any such reconciliation. Communal electricity 13. The applicants asserted that the main landlord meter is recording more

than the communal load and were readings for the whole of the [NAME_8]

and not just the communal areas and therefore the applicants were being

overcharged. The contract between the respondent and [NAME_16]

had not been disclosed to them but [NAME_9] played no part in the provision

or billing of these charges 14. The applicants told the tribunal that there is a dedicated landlord-only metering arrangement. Due to their concerns about the high electricity charges, the applicants commissioned an electricity survey in December 2025. [NAME_20] from [COMPANY_20] (the meter operator attended site on 23 December 2025 and met with [NAME_11] and [NAME_13]. His subsequent report confirmed that the meter used for the billing of the leaseholders as ‘communal electricity’ was in fact measuring the whole [NAME_8]’s consumption including the apartments’ own consumption

6 and therefore did not measure the genuine communal consumption of the leaseholders. Subsequently, a meter was found in the landlord’s cupboard which appeared to only record the communal area consumption. The respondent has since confirmed that the communal meter was installed incorrectly at the time the development was built. 15. The applicants asserted the landlord should have known consumption

was too high and did not accurately reflect the genuine communal

electricity consumption. Therefore the applicants submitted that the

landlord should re-credit to the applicants the difference between the

amount billed to and paid by the landlord to [NAME_16] and the actual

cost incurred by the applicants. The applicants accepted they first

noticed a discrepancy was occurring in 2024 when the cost of energy

substantially increased but asserted the respondent should have noticed

in 2019 that an abnormality was occurring, or at least from 2023 when

it contracted with [NAME_16] for the negotiation of an electricity

supply and billing service. 16. The applicants also asserted that the cost of the electricity per unit and

the standing charge were too high and were therefore unreasonable. 17. The respondent stated that it has sought over many years to explain the

process of charging for the (metered) heating supply to the flats.

Inevitably, something of a ‘float’ has to be maintained, as the landlord

cannot change the unit price in ‘real time,’ it has to be adjusted from time

to time so that, over the years, the costs of running the heating system

and the costs of the billing/metering are recovered fairly from

leaseholders in accordance with their use. In addition, the central costs

of maintaining the heating plant itself are recovered via the service

charge, not the unit price. 18. The respondent accepted the electricity meter for the communal areas

had been incorrectly connected and asserted this was the ‘fault’ of the

developer when the [NAME_8] was constructed. This issue had been

reported and the respondent was now waiting for the supplier to remedy

the situation as the meter could not be’ interfered’ with by the

respondent or its agents. 19. The respondent asserted that notwithstanding the incorrect connection

the electricity charges had been reasonably incurred as the ‘error’ was

neither obvious to the respondent, its agents and until 2024 it had not

been obvious to the applicants. The respondent told the tribunal that a

‘credit’ would be sought from the supplier and if obtained, this would be

re-credited to the leaseholders’ accounts in the appropriate sums. Cooling charges - [NAME_16]

7 20. The applicants asserted they had been over (double) charged for this

item because the CHP unit had been switched off by the respondent.

Had the unit been functioning, it would have reduced the amount of the

demands sent to the applicants. 21. Further, the applicants asserted that leaseholders are charged both for

the operation and maintenance of this system and receive monthly

bills from [NAME_16] that include including a fixed standing charge.

The applicants asserted that the cost of these Cooling standing

charges are unjustified. The applicants asserted that in the period 2017

– 2024, the daily cooling standing charges ranged from 16p per day to

£2.31 per day (in 2023). However, the respondent has provided no

explanation as to why there are standing charges at all when the system

runs on communal electricity that has already been paid for under the

service charge. 22. Therefore, it was the applicants’ case that leaseholders were being

charged twice for the same electricity: (i) through the communal

electricity line in the service charge, and (ii) through the [NAME_16] standing charges without any corresponding credit

back to the service charge account. Further, Cooling standing charges

have been levied in periods when cooling was not available and the

[NAME_8] has experienced long periods where there not been any chilled

water floor and no heating hot water. Notwithstanding these issues, the

[COMPANY_16] invoices continued to include cooling standing

charges. 23. The respondent told the tribunal that it has employed [NAME_16], a

specialist company in utilities, to procure electricity contracts and

monitor the market and that it has had to pay the electricity bills for the

[NAME_8], based on its metered supply and using the figures from the

meter installed at the time the [NAME_8] was constructed in 2016. 24. The respondent also told the tribunal that it has adduced evidence

justifying the rate at which electricity has been procured; the payment of

the bills and evidence of having tested and the volatility of utility prices

on the wholesale market. The respondent asserted that by contrast, the

applicants have adduced no comparator evidence or addressed the fact

the respondent had little option but to pay the electricity bills when

rendered by the supplier. Consequently, it was difficult to see how either

contractually or under s.19 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tribunal

has a proper basis on which to reduce the electricity costs. The

respondent also asserted that in fact the electricity costs have not risen

nearly as much as the applicants suggested. 25. The respondent accepted that what does appear now to be common

ground between the parties, is the fact that the meter for the ‘landlord

supply’ in the basement of the [NAME_8], has been set up incorrectly, and

as such, it is in fact metering the entire supply to the [NAME_8] (i.e.

8

communal electricity costs and the individual flat consumption,

notwithstanding that the individual flats are themselves metered. The

respondent asserted that this will seemingly have resulted in much

higher bills over the life of the [NAME_8] than should have been the case.

However, the respondent asserted that this would need to be resolved

by [NAME_21] and the metering company. Thereafter, the

respondent will seek to ensure that any credits for the excess billing

made by the supplier are returned to leaseholders. 26. The respondent denied that either it or its agents ‘ought to have known’

that this issue with the communal meter existed, or that its handling of

this affects the quality of the management service provided by [NAME_9]. The

respondent asserted that [NAME_9] have cooperated with all investigations

over the past couple of months but are at the mercy of the electricity

companies and this is not something within [NAME_9]’s control. Although,

the respondent intends to pursue a recrediting of electricity costs, this

is likely to take some time. CHP generator 27. The applicants asserted the [NAME_8] is required to have an operational

gas-fired Combined Heat and Power (‘CHP) unit as described in the

Resident’s Guide provided to leaseholders. The CHP is intended to

deliver considerable savings in electricity costs and as a by-product of

heat generation, it should also produce communal electricity so as to

reduce the [NAME_8]’s running costs. The applicants also asserted that the

CHP unit was intended to produce all of the space heating and domestic

hot water to the dwellings and common parts, with a view to meeting

100% of domestic hot water demand (including, therefore, the heating,

as the underfloor heating runs on hot water pipes), while at the same

time producing almost 30% of the [NAME_8]’s electricity demand. 28. The applicants also asserted that the CHP generator appeared to have

been kept switched off by the respondent, as the last maintenance

record was recorded in an invoice dated 20 January 2017, shortly after

[NAME_3] acquired the [NAME_8]. In August 2025, the [NAME_8]

Management System screen in the plant room showed the CHP plant has

turned off’. As a result, all communal electricity demand was met from

the grid at commercial, higher, rates and the boilers and pumps worked

harder than intended, thereby imposing an additional workload on them

and potentially led to higher repair costs 29. The respondent submitted that the CHP and solar installations that (a)

the solar installation is functioning as the applicants’ own report states

and (b) whilst the respondent has now taken steps toward

commissioning the CHP plant (which was seemingly not done by the

developer), this does not affect the s.19 question with respect to the

electricity bills and in any event does not amount to a breach of some

9

obligation on the respondent’s as there is no contractual requirement to

provide a functioning CHP. [NAME_18] maintenance 30. The applicants asserted the Heat Interface Unit (‘HIU’) comprise a boxed

unit within each flat, which transfers heat from the communal primary

circuit into the flat’s own secondary heating and water pipework. A Fan

Coil Unit (‘FCU’) is a small, fan-assisted heat-exchange unit and uses

chilled water from the communal system to provide cooling to individual

rooms. Both units are located entirely within the demised premises and

are within the individual leaseholder’s obligation to maintain as the

Resident’s Guide states:

‘Each HIU does require annual maintenance and this

should be undertaken by each apartment owner as part of the

maintenance regime for their apartment.’ 31. This statement, the applicants submitted, is in accordance with the terms

of the leases as the definition of Retained Part which refers to “the

Service Media at the [NAME_8] as parts which do not exclusively serve

either the Property, the Flats or the Retail units. The HIU (while

undoubtedly connected to the rest of the [NAME_8]’s system) only serves

the individual flat that it is a part of. 32. The applicants asserted in the alternative that the HIU falls into the

definition of the Property in Schedule 1 either because it falls within the

floor plan edged red on plan 1, and / or because the HIU does not fall

within the definition of ‘Common Parts’. 33. Further, an email from [NAME_9]’s [NAME_8] manager in May 2017 stated that

leaseholders were expected to arrange their own maintenance, and

recommended [NAME_22]. However, on 27 November 2018, [NAME_9]

sent a letter stating that HIU servicing would in future be organised

collectively and recharged through the service charge. It is understood

that it is [NAME_3]’s case that this was agreed at an AGM in January 2018

although the letter at dated 15 January 2018 is simply in respect of a

residents’ meeting in the [NAME_8] lobby to “get to meet your property

manager” and does not refer specifically to the [NAME_18] or the proposed

change to their maintenance. It is unclear how many of the residents

attended that meeting which took place in [NAME_11]’s flat rather than

in the [NAME_8] lobby . 34. The respondent told the tribunal that the Heat Interface Team are

contracted to maintain the plantroom and thus maintain the heating, hot

water and chilling services at the [NAME_8]. The commercial unit on the

ground floor was let as ‘shell only’ and is self-contained and therefore it

does not take heating /hot water /cooling. All 22 flats are connected to

10

the communal heating system, which circulates hot and chilled water,

with the flats interfacing with that system by way of ‘heat interface units’

([NAME_18]) and FCUs (chillers). 35. The respondent told the tribunal that there are sound practical reasons

why the landlord should maintain the [NAME_18] in a [NAME_8] as they form

part of the central system and servicing by a plumber who was unfamiliar

with the system could detrimentally affect the whole. The respondent

asserted that a group of leaseholders agreed at the Resident’s Meeting

held on Tuesday 23rd January at 6.30pm that it made sense for the

respondent to include the [NAME_18] within the maintenance services

supplied by Heat Interface Team and subsequently all leaseholders were

informed this change would happen from 2019 onwards and have

consequently been charged for the same for 7 years. Until this

application, no leaseholders had objected to the ‘new’ arrangement and

have paid the charge added to their service charge demands. 36. The respondent asserted that the terms of the lease actually provide that

HIU maintenance is a landlord obligation as The Retained Parts is

defined as including all parts of the [NAME_8] other than the Property

including ‘the Service Media at the [NAME_8] which do not exclusively

serve either the Property, the Flats or the Retail. ‘Service Media’ is

defined as ‘all media for the supply or removal of heat… comfort

cooling… and all other services and utilities and all structures machinery

and equipment ancillary to those media.’ The HIU is, accordingly,

‘Service Media.’ The definition of the demised parts at Schedule 1

includes ‘all Service Media exclusively serving the Property’. Roof repair costs 37. The applicants asserted that [NAME_3] has spent a considerable amount on

roof works and leaks, despite the (young) age of the [NAME_8]. [NAME_9] has asserted that some sums have been recovered from the

developer, it has not been possible to identify where these have been

credited. Further, the respondent has failed to provide clear evidence in

respect of the insurance claims arising out of the same. Consequently,

there is a risk of ‘double recovery,’ with the leaseholders paying for works

through the service charge while [NAME_3] also receives insurance payments

without accounting for them. Further, instead of implementing a

comprehensive solution to the problems experienced with the roof, [NAME_3]

has adopted a policy of ‘patch repair’ thereby incurring unreasonable

costs. 38. The respondent asserted that insurance claims had been made and

where paid had been credited to the service charge accounts. Major leak (2021)

11 39. In the winter of 2021, there was a major flood at the [NAME_8] and

applicants asserted that the way in which the damage caused by this has

been dealt by the respondent was unsatisfactory. In 2021, two potable

water expansion vessels were replaced at a total cost of £10,400 (£3,672

installation plus the cost of the vessels at £6,187), without any

notification to leaseholders or consultation under section 20 of the

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, it is likely that a permanent

replacement would have cost c.£1,000,22 but the ‘temporary’ vessel

remains installed and used. Following major leaks in 2022, [NAME_9] stated

that an insurance payment of £5,500 would be used towards remedial

works, however, there has been no corresponding credit. 40. The respondent asserted that this incident had been dealt with as swiftly

and as cost effectively as had been possible. As the flood created an

emergency situation it had not been possible to consult with the

leaseholders. [NAME_23] cover; [NAME_24] cover; insurance commissions and [NAME_8] insurance 41. The applicants’ concerns with the insurance were itemised as:

(1) the level of the buildings insurance premiums;

(2) the late addition of terrorism and engineering cover without

any clear notice to leaseholders;

(3) undisclosed commissions and the new “insurance

administration” fee;

(4) new administration fees from 2023;

(5) the way the overall insurance cost is apportioned between [NAME_1], [ADDRESS] and the ground-floor café;

(6) premium discrepancies; 42. The applicants asserted that on a ‘footprint’ analysis, [NAME_1] is

paying too much as a proportion and that [NAME_3] has not set out a rational

basis for its charging, save for the argument this has been this historic

allocation. The applicants also complained that there has been

incomplete disclosure of broker and freeholder remuneration. 43. [NAME_17] of [COMPANY_25] for the

respondent, told the tribunal and it accepted, that no commission is

taken on the insurances at the [NAME_8] although it did [NAME_26] a

management charge in connection with its work in placing the insurance

12

from the 2024 year. That charge (amounting to circa 10% of the [NAME_8]

premium) is recoverable under the lease given the definition of

‘Insurance Rent’. 44. The respondent informed the tribunal that the [NAME_8] insurance covers

both 8 and [ADDRESS]. Number 10 contributes as set out in the

apportionment schedule provided and more or less matches the

applicants’ own figures. [NAME_23] has been in place since the

respondent first acquired the freehold and is not a recent addition as

asserted by the applicants. Further, it is a specified insured risk under

the Lease, which also permits the landlord to insure against ‘any other

risks which the Landlord reasonably decides to insure against from time

to time.’ [NAME_24] is very commonly placed by landlords

including this respondent, so as to provide a measure of comfort against

unexpected maintenance costs. In any event, the applicants provided no

like for like insurance comparator evidence to support their assertions. [NAME_27] 45. The applicants told the tribunal assessment of the [NAME_8]’s fire safety

which led to the [NAME_27] being put in place occurred on 23

December 2020 at a total cost to the leaseholders of £203,888.10 for the

period January to December 2021. The applicants asserted that [NAME_9]

mismanaged the process as a permanent fire detection upgrade cost

£31,660,30 and could have been done urgently. Therefore, [NAME_3]’s

priority should have been to commission the fire alarm as soon as

possible, even if that meant it was not possible to wait for government

funding in advance. Even after funding was confirmed on 7 June 2021,

the instruction to proceed was not placed until 12 October 2021. 46. Therefore, only 25% of the waking-watch cost (representing a period of

approximately three months) should be treated as reasonably incurred. 47. The respondent told the tribunal that the [NAME_27] was put in place

at short notice and remained until a compliant fire alarm enabling

simultaneous evacuation to take place was installed. The timing of the

[NAME_27] coincided with the height of the covid pandemic (in

December 2020) and at a time when large numbers of buildings were

seeking the installation of alarms and waking watches. Subsequently, the

government’s [NAME_27] was announced just days after

the [NAME_27] was put in place at the [NAME_8], and funding was

pursued and an application made applying on the first day possible with

funding eventually obtained in June 2021. 48. As well as the delays arising from the government and GLA’s

departments, there was inevitable lead-in time for the contractor, and

then the usual difficulties of gaining access to the leaseholders’ flats. At

a cost of just £11.50 per hour at all times, the [NAME_27] was in fact

13

procured at an excellent rate albeit it was in place for a longer period

than the leaseholders now consider to be unreasonable. Interim professional charges 49. The applicants told the tribunal that on 22 June 2022, [NAME_9] wrote to the

leaseholders in respect of fire safety professional fees which stated:

We have already received £110,111.00 of pre-tender support

from the [NAME_8] leaving over a total of

£107.549.00. It is necessary to invoice this money now to enable

the continued running of the [NAME_8].” 50. As a result of the Court of Appeal decision in [COMPANY_28] v

[NAME_29] at Hippersley Point [2025] EWCA Civ 856, 221

ConLR 17, the applicants asserted that any unpaid sums, as of 28 June

2022, are not recoverable through the service charge. Legal and professional fees 51. The applicants also disputed a number of charges applied under ‘Legal

and Professional Fees.’ The applicants relied on paragraph 9 of Schedule

8 of the [NAME_8] Act 2022, which states:

“No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in respect

of legal or other professional services relating to the liability (or

potential liability) of any person incurred as a result of a

relevant defect.” 52. Consequently, the respondent’s ‘[NAME_30]’ (May and July 2022)

are irrecoverable costs and were criticised in the tribunal remediation

order proceedings as being deeply flawed and not of a reasonable

standard. 53. The applicants told the tribunal they understood that the [NAME_31]

fees arose in connection with [NAME_8] safety advice and are not

recoverable. The applicants also asserted the BSR ‘safety case’

preparation fee and the [NAME_32] software charges all

relate to fire-safety and [NAME_8]-safety compliance or advice and also

cannot be recovered due to the effect of the [NAME_8] Act 2022 (the

2022 Act’). 54. The respondent informed the tribunal that it accepts that, as the law

presently stands, any leaseholder holding a qualifying lease, has the

benefit of paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the [NAME_8] Act 2022 and

that no sums are payable by leaseholders with respect to legal or other

professional services relating to the liability (or potential liability) of any

14

person incurred as a result of a relevant defect; [COMPANY_28]

v Leaseholders of Hippersley Point [2025] HLR 43 at §203 although this

case is currently the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court. 55. The respondent accepted that whilst that appeal will not change the

position with respect to costs incurred after 28 June 2022, it may affect

the law with respect to costs incurred prior to that date but which were

not in fact paid (or covered by payments) made prior to that date. The

respondent accordingly reserved its position entirely on this point, albeit

necessarily accepting that as the law stands, this tribunal is bound by the

Court of Appeal’s decision. 56. In this application, the respondent’s costs in issue are those that are

shown under ‘Professional Fees.’ The respondent submitted that only

the applicants holding a qualifying lease are entitled to benefit from this

protection afforded by the 2022 Act. A number of leaseholders had not

returned their leaseholder deed of certificate despite efforts to collect the

same in and are therefore presumed to not have a qualifying lease 57. The respondent told the tribunal that a number of the applicants had

paid sufficient sums on account (or in response to an interim charge on

22/6/22) and as such that they would get no protection from paragraph

9 with respect to the challenged professional costs that had been

incurred in the 2022 year in respect of relevant defects. Other

leaseholders had partially paid such costs. Accordingly, the position is

at the very least nuanced and will vary from leaseholder to leaseholder

as to whether the protections of the 2022 Act apply. 58. The respondent asserted that the position is different for ongoing

[NAME_8] safety management costs and in particular those costs that arise

out of the need for the respondent to comply with its new duties under

Part 4 of the [NAME_8] Act 2022 by virtue of the [NAME_8] being a

higher-risk [NAME_8]. As a result of those new duties, the respondent was

required to prepare a safety case report and put in place numerous

policies, processes and procedures tailored to the [NAME_8] and monitor

matters on an ongoing basis. 59. In order to do so, the respondent incurred a number of costs which are

not caught by paragraph 9 of Sch.8 (as they don’t relate to relevant

defects). These costs are recoverable both under the wide terms of the

lease itself, but also by virtue of (new) section 30D Landlord and Tenant

Act 1985, which implies into the Lease terms such that the cost of

‘[NAME_8] safety measures’ are recoverable by way of service charge. Management fees 60. The applicant asserted that the day-to-day management of the [NAME_8],

as well as its financial and overall administration, has been poor. This

15

has been coupled with a failure to respond to leaseholder concerns.

There have also been serious concerns about the way in which [NAME_9] has

handled the maintenance of the [NAME_8], as well as repairs. This has

resulted in high and volatile service charges, while [NAME_3] has not been

able to produce adequate service records. Further, the applicants

asserted there is insufficient evidence that reserve and sinking funds are

being held and managed in line with best practice. 61. The respondent took issue with the applicant’s assertions and told the

tribunal this complicated [NAME_8] had been managed to a reasonable

standard at all times by its managing agents. General maintenance costs 62. The applicants told the tribunal that the following invoices which were

supposed to be re-imbursed by insurers have not been accounted for in

the service charge accounts: (1) The temporary expansion vessels

(£6,188) as set out above); (2) The BMS Maintenance contract (£8,610)

in 2020. 63. In addition, the applicants referred to a number of contracts/works that

were not consulted upon with leaseholders by the respondent, pursuant

to s.2o Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 thereby limited the recoverable

costs to £250 per leaseholder. These were:

(i) The HIU maintenance contracts;

(ii) The replacement of the expansion vessel;

(iii) The BMS costs in 2020;

(iv) [NAME_27] costs;

(v) [NAME_30] report fees; and

(vi) [NAME_26] report fees 64. The respondent asserted that the applicants appear to misunderstand

when statutory consultation is required in respect of a qualifying long-

term agreement (OLTA) i.e. if the contract has to continue for a term in

excess of 12 months in respect to ‘qualifying works’ – being works on a

[NAME_8] or other premises, as distinct from services (such as a ‘[NAME_27]’). 65. The respondent asserted that [NAME_8] repair works will be qualifying

works, but services such as window cleaning, or the supply of water

or electricity, or provision of staff, or the purchase of an insurance policy,

16

will not be. Even then, it is only engaged where the contribution of a

leaseholder will exceed £250 (as it operates as a cap). 66. To the extent that the tribunal considers there may be issues of failure

to comply with the consultation requirements, it is invited to adopt the

approach of the Lands Tribunal in [NAME_33] v [NAME_44]/42/2006 at §41, there being no evidence of prejudice [NAME_34] v [NAME_35] & others [2013] 1 WLR 854). The alternative is

that R will have to make a formal application in due course, and it is

unlikely to be in either side’s interests for there to be further proceedings

if the same could be pragmatically avoided. 67. The respondent submitted that the applicants have made reference to a

large number of heads of cost falling foul of s20 consultation

requirements. The respondent submitted the HIU maintenance

agreements with [COMPANY_36] are not QLTAs. It was asserted

that they are 1 year term agreements, that can be terminated at any

time on 30 days’ written notice: onwards. The value of this challenge

is put at £6,187.66, being the cost of 2 replacement potable water

expansion vessels (at £544 each) and three [NAME_37]

pressurisation units. The respondent told the tribunal these were

emergency works to address failing parts just prior to Christmas and

consultation would not have been possible. The respondent accepted

that some flats will have paid more than £250 for the cost of these

parts. 68. The respondent also submitted that the disputed invoice is for the parts

and not for ‘works on a [NAME_8].’ Therefore, the cost is not the cost of

‘qualifying works.’ In the alternative to the extent the tribunal finds

that s.20 consultation was required, it is invited to grant unconditional

dispensation given the urgency of the works apparent from the report

and lack of prejudice to those leaseholders who have to contribute more

than £250. The low value of the amounts caught by any s.20 cap would

render the costs of a separate application for dispensation

uncommercial. In the circumstances, the applicants are invited to take a

pragmatic view. 69. Further, in respect of BMS costs the respondent asserted that the invoice

for these costs is a total of £8,610. It was also said that similar points

apply as with the expansion vessel as it is no good spending 3 months

following the dispensation process when residents reasonably expect

heating and hot water to function. Because there are only 22 flats in the

[NAME_8], and the penthouse flat ([NAME_11]’s) pays such a high

percentage, the s.20 threshold is very low. It will significantly increase

costs – ultimately paid by leaseholders – if dispensation in such

circumstances has to be applied for every time something unexpected

arises. Again, the applicants are invited to take a pragmatic view, but to

the extent dispensation is required, the tribunal is invited to grant

unconditional dispensation.

17 70. In respect of the [NAME_27] costs, the respondent

asserted they were neither a QLTA (indeed, it is common ground that R

did not contract for a period over a year) nor qualifying works and

therefore no s.20 issues arise. Similarly in respect of the [NAME_47] reports the respondent asserted this is neither a QLTA nor

qualifying works and no s.20 issues arise. The tribunal’s decisions and reasons 71. The tribunal finds that neither party had given any real consideration as

to how to assist the tribunal in respect of the presentation of the

presentation of the hearing bundle. The tribunal found much of the

documentary evidence relied upon was duplicated, unnecessary or

irrelevant. The tribunal would have found it helpful if the parties

agreed it was necessary only to include a sample lease; sample bills and

sample demands and only in the event these could not have been

agreed, might it have proved necessary to include more extensive

material. 72. Further, the tribunal found the Index to the Hearing Bundle to be of

limited assistance, as it failed to identify each of the multiple

reports/documents in the appendices to witness statements, although

the former frequently ran to hundreds of pages.

73. Having considered all of the relevant documents and the oral evidence

provided, the tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as

follows having regard to the relevant clauses of the lease(s) and sections

of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. 74. In a sample lease dated 26 June 2015 made between [COMPANY_43] and [NAME_38] and [NAME_39] in respect

of Flat 301 in the subject [NAME_8] provided the following terms;

Insurance Rent

(a) a fair and reasonable proportion determined by the

Landlord of the cosy of any premiums (including any IPT) that

the Landlord ..

Schedule 1 – The Property

…

(g) all Service Media exclusively serving the Property

Schedule 2 – The Rights

Comfort Cooling Condensers

18

The right to connected to the external condensers for the

comfort cooling system for the Property and the Flats on the

external plant deck.

Schedule 7 – Services and Service Costs and Part 2.

Service costs

Service costs

The Service Costs are the total of:

(a) all the costs reasonably and properly incurred or

reasonably and properly estimated by the Landlord to be

incurred of:

(i) providing the Services;

(ii) the supply and removal of electricity, gas, water, sewage

and other utilities to and from the Retained Parts;

…

(vi) putting aside such sum as shall reasonably considered

necessary by the Landlord (whose decision shall be final as to

questions of fact) to provide reserves or sinking fund for items

of future expenditure to be or expected to be incurred at any

time in connection with providing the Services;

…

75. The tribunal finds there was very little dispute between the parties as to

the terms of the lease except for (i) the responsibility to maintain the

Heat Interface Units and (ii) any landlord’s entitlement to create a fund

from the cooling charges to off-set against future payments.

76. Section 19 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states:

(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 provision 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.

77. Although, the parties provided a large number of documents, the

tribunal would have been better assisted, had they been able to agree to

19

confine themselves to a representative sample of

bills/demands/documents on the disputed issues rather than including

every single document that had been disclosed. Further, the tribunal

were not assisted by the lack of a detailed index identifying each

document attached to the witness statements as these frequently ran into

hundreds of pages, thereby making it unnecessarily difficult to negotiate

the documents.

Heating, hot water and cooling charges – [NAME_16] 78. During the hearing, the respondent accepted that payments towards the

standing charge for cooling (which are solely electricity charges) had not

been credited to the leaseholders’ account and the failure to do so was a

mistake on the part of the respondent. Consequently, £61,958.80

together with payments made in December 2025 were going to appear

as credits in the leaseholders’ account. 79. The tribunal finds that this ‘mistake’ had been responsible, at least in

part for the respondent creating a ‘loan from heating fund and a ‘loan

from freeholder’ for which interest at 4% above the base rate is charged

to the leaseholders. Although the applicants did not specifically

challenge the use of ‘loans’ the tribunal nevertheless invites the

respondent to reconsider, whether in light of its ‘mistake’ whether the

loans or part of them were in fact required and reconsider the imposition

of interest payments on the leaseholders. 80. The tribunal accepts the respondents’ evidence that [NAME_9] have no part in

the sourcing, supply or billing of gas and electricity charges and that this

has at all time during the period in issue, remained the responsibility of

the landlord and has since 2023 has been outsourced to [NAME_16]. 81. During the hearing, [NAME_13], for the respondent also accepted that

the comfort cooling meters in the individual apartments were not

producing any readings as they were not connected, although this was

not realised until July 2025. The connection of these meters would be

subject to a s.20 consultation procedure in due course. 82. However, the reconciliation of the accounts left a sum in the region of

£10,000 not credited to the leaseholders. the tribunal finds the lease(s)

as referred to in para. 74 above, provide the respondent with a discretion

allowing the creation of a fund to offset against unexpected costs or

unpaid utility charges. 83. The tribunal also heard and accepted the evidence of [NAME_14] in

respect of the role of [NAME_16] as the respondent’s billing agent and

his explanation of how [NAME_15], of which he is also an

operations director, secured electricity costs through a two-track

process. In contrast the applicants provided no ‘expert’ or independent

20

evidence on this issue and again relied on the evidence of [NAME_10]

on this issue who accepted he did not have the same access to the energy

markets as the respondent or its agents. Communal electricity 84. The tribunal finds that after receipt of a report commissioned by the

applicants the respondent accepted in December 2025 that:

We have now been advised as follows by [NAME_15]

(broker), based on [NAME_20]’s site visit of 23 December 2025 and the

supplier’s internal review: [NAME_20]’s engineer has produced a full

technical report following the site visit. The supplier has

confirmed that the communal meter was previously installed

incorrectly. A physical change to the wiring configuration is

required in order to correct the installation. [NAME_20] is currently

consulting with [NAME_21] (the DNO) to determine

whether the remedial works must be carried out by the DNO or

whether [NAME_20] can undertake them directly. A determination on

responsibility and method of repair is expected next week.

In addition: Once the technical remediation route is confirmed

and implemented, the supplier has confirmed that they will work

with [NAME_20] to recalculate the historic supply and billing position.

The broker has confirmed that all parties are now aligned that

this is a historical installation error and that it is being

progressed as a corrective technical matter.

This position therefore confirms that: the December site visit did

identify substantive technical issues; a detailed engineer’s report

exists; the installation has been deemed incorrect by the

supplier; and remedial works are now being scoped with the

DNO. As soon as we receive: 1. confirmation from [NAME_21] and [NAME_20] on who will carry out the remedial works;

2. the proposed scope and programme; and 3. the supplier’s

position on billing recalculation methodology, we will circulate

a further update to the Residents’ Association without delay… 85. The tribunal finds the ‘communal’ meter did incorrectly record

readings for the entirety of the [NAME_8] and not only the communal

areas, to which the applicants were required to contribute through the

service charges. 86. In closing submissions to the tribunal in respect of these wrongly

charged costs, [NAME_4] for the respondent posed the question

‘What does the tribunal do?’ He submitted the respondent landlord had

reasonably incurred these electricity costs, as there had been no warning

sign that the ‘communal’ meter had been incorrectly wired and that it

21

had only been the increase in unit price, in about 2024, that first alerted

anyone that there was something not quite right. Consequently, the

charges had been ‘reasonably incurred’ and the remedy was a

recalculation and recrediting of charges by the supplier. It was however

accepted, that if the situation were not rectified these charges might

arguably could not be said to be reasonably incurred if the incorrectly

wired meter remained in situ. 87. The tribunal finds the communal electricity costs were unreasonably

incurred. The tribunal finds these costs were wrongly incurred due to the

incorrectly wired meter in the control of the landlord and that it is

illogical to accept the respondent’s submission that these costs were

‘reasonably incurred,’ particularly as the respondent will seek a

refund/recredit of these charges from the supplier on the basis they were

incorrectly charged.

However, in the absence of any expert evidence, the tribunal is not

satisfied with the applicants’ calculation of the overpaid charges

said to be due to them. Therefore, in view of the substantial sum

(£413,20) sought by the applicants in respect of this item of service

charge, the tribunal directs:

(i) the respondent is to actively seek from its electricity

supplier a recalculation and recredit of the overpaid

charges;

(ii) In the event the sum due to be recredited cannot be

determined or agreed between the parties by 31 May 2026,

either party may seek a further determination from the

tribunal as to the percentage or sum due to the

applicants.

(iii) Such an application may be made within the current

application and will be determined by the same tribunal on

the documents provided unless a further oral hearing is

requested.

(iv) Both parties have the tribunal’s permission to rely upon

expert evidence in respect of the above calculation of the

electricity costs to be recredited to the applicants. CHP Unit 88. The tribunal finds the combined heat and power plant (CHP energy unit)

was not commissioned by the respondent and the applicants were not

charged for its maintenance during the period in issue.

22 89. The tribunal finds this unit was initially connected to the system by the

developers of the [NAME_8] and that at some point in time it had been in

use, as evidenced by the applicants’ production of a

screenshot/photograph of the meter. By the time of handover of the

[NAME_8] to the respondent, the tribunal finds the CHP Unit had been

switched off by the developer (or someone on its behalf) and was not

switched back on by the respondent during the period in dispute. The

finds this is supported by the lack of any demands for payment for the

servicing of this unit from the respondent. 90. The tribunal finds the respondent took a reasoned decision not to switch

the CHP unit on after the handover of the [NAME_8]. Further, in the

absence of expert evidence, the tribunal is not persuaded on the balance

of probabilities, that its operation would have saved the amount of costs

claimed by the applicants. [NAME_10] made detailed

calculations as to potential savings, he is not and did not hold himself

out to be an expert on these matters. Further, [NAME_10] did not make

any allowance for the likely degradation this unit experiences over time,

thereby reducing its efficiency in saving energy costs (if any) or the

maintenance costs over the period in question. 91. Further, the tribunal finds there is no contractual obligation on the

part of the respondent in the lease (s) to switch on the CHP unit and that

the Residential Guide produced by the former developer/managing

agent [NAME_40] does not form part of the contractual terms

between the parties. Consequently, the decision whether to switch on

the CHP unit remained within the discretion of the respondent landlord.

The tribunal notes however, that on 23/12/2025 the leaseholders were

informed that:

‘Further to our visit this morning, the Residents' Association

acknowledges confirmation that the Combined Heat and Power

(CHP) system has now been commissioned and is operational. 92. In view of the findings about, the tribunal concludes that no ‘refund’ is

due to the applicants in respect of the non-operational CHP unit. HIU 93. Notwithstanding the evidence of [NAME_12] as to the reasonableness of the

charges made in respect of the maintenance of these units, the tribunal

finds these units form part of the demise to the respective

leaseholders in whose flat they are located. Consequently, the tribunal

finds the applicant leaseholders are required under the terms of their

lease to maintain these units. 94. The tribunal finds there is no ‘estoppel by acquiescence’ as submitted by

the respondent. The tribunal finds the letter of 15 January 2018

23

announcing a Residents Meeting on 23 January 2018 failed to expressly

identify that at least one of the purposes of the meeting was to discuss

changing the maintenance obligation to the landlord but was expressly

said to be ‘…a chance to get to meet your property manager for the

[NAME_8] and ask any queries in relation to your development.’. Further,

it is unclear how many leaseholders attended this meeting but the

tribunal finds on the balance of probabilities from the oral and written

evidence of the parties, that it included less than a majority of

leaseholders. The tribunal finds the respondent thereafter took it upon

itself to assume responsibility for the servicing of the HIU and

announced this in a letter dated 27 November 2018 ‘as previously

agreed’ although it was unable to inform the tribunal which leaseholders

had expressly agreed to this arrangement. 95. The tribunal finds the lack of ‘protest’ at the respondent’s subsequent

decision that it was taking over the maintenance of these units, was

phrased in such a manner as to indicate the leaseholders had little choice

in this matter. However, [NAME_11] gave evidence that he had

continued to have the unit maintained at his own expense despite being

charged for its maintenance through the service charges. 96. Although the respondent sought to rely on the case of [NAME_41] v London

Borough of Islington [2015] UKUT 542 (LC) to support its arguments,

the tribunal finds on the facts that the leaseholders at no stage were

fully informed of the respondent’s intentions to take over the

maintenance of these units and did not either expressly or implicitly

agree to it. The tribunal does not accept the respondent’s arguments

that the landlord retained a wide discretion in respect of the provision of

services as these units are and remain within the demise granted to each

([2015] UKUT 542 (LC)) leaseholder. 97. In conclusion, the tribunal finds the cost of the annual service of the HIU

units has not been reasonably incurred in the period 2017 to 2024 and

should be recredited in the appropriate percentages to the applicant

leaseholders. [NAME_27] 98. The tribunal finds the respondent could reasonably have carried out the

works to install a fire alarm system by the end of July 2022. The cost of

the fire alarm system at circa £36,000 was considerably less than the

£100,000 budgeted costs of the [NAME_27] and the actual cost

incurred of £203,888.10. 99. The January 2021 guidance issued by the Ministry of Housing,

Communities and Local Government said that “the cost of employing

one person/individual undertaking [NAME_27] duties exceeds the

average cost of installing an alarm system in 3 to 7 months” By June

2022, the tribunal finds that (i) government funding from the Waking

24

Watch Relief Fund for the installation of a fire alarm system had been

confirmed; (ii) the cost of a suitable fire alarm system was known and

(iii) the respondents could have arranged for a contractor to start

works and for leaseholders to provide access at an earlier date. 100. The tribunal finds the respondent failed to show a contractor was not

available sooner or that access to flats was not available and finds the

respondent unreasonably delayed the installation of a fire alarm system

thereby removing the continued need for a ‘[NAME_27]’ Therefore, the

tribunal finds the cost of the ‘[NAME_27]’ was unreasonably

incurred and should be limited to £70,000 representing 70% (or 7

months) of the original estimated costs and which sum is payable by the

applicants in their respective proportions. Roof repair costs 101. The tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence on this issue and

supported by a number of invoices. The tribunal finds that where

appropriate, claims on the insurance were made by the respondent and

have either been refused or credited to the leaseholders accounts or are

due to be so credited. 102. The tribunal does not accept that the costs of patch repairs were

unreasonable in contrast to the major works suggested by the applicants.

Further, the tribunal finds the applicant did not seek to rely on

evidence to substantiate its allegations that patch repairs should not

have been carried out. As an expert tribunal, it finds that it is a common

and reasonable practice for landlords to carry out patch repairs before

embarking upon possibly unnecessary and costly works. The tribunal

finds there is no evidence to suggest it was unreasonable for the

respondent to have done the same in this instance. Insurance – terrorist and engineering cover and commissions 103. The tribunal finds that the ‘Insured Risks’ in the lease terms include,

…heave, landslip, terrorism, accidental damage to underground

services,…and any other risks which the Landlord reasonably

decides to insure against from time to time… 104. The tribunal find it is reasonable for the respondent to include both

terrorism and engineering cover in its schedule of insurance in view of

the complexity of [NAME_8] and multiple communal utilities it provides

as well as its Central London location. The tribunal accepts the

respondent’s evidence that both have been included in the insurance

schedule from the outset and that consultation with the leaseholders was

not required.

25 105. The tribunal also finds the respondent’s longstanding use of square

footage as a means to allocate the proportion each leaseholder is to

contribute to the insurance, is both appropriate and reasonable. The

tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence that no commission was

paid to the respondent in respect of the insurance. Interim professional charges 106. These relate to an interim demand dated 22/06/2022 in respect of fire

safety costs. Therefore the question the tribunal had to consider, was

whether the landlord had paid for any fire safety works that were

excluded by schedule 8 para. 9 of the [NAME_8] Act 2022 which

states:

(1) No service charge is payable under a qualifying lease in

respect of legal or other professional services relating to the

liability (or potential liability) of any person incurred as a result

of a relevant defect.

(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to the extent that the

service charge is payable to a management company in respect

of legal or other professional services provided to the company

in connection with an application or possible application by the

company for or relating to a remediation contribution order

under section 124.

(2) In this paragraph the reference to services includes

services provided in connection with—

(a) obtaining legal advice,

(b) any proceedings before a court or tribunal,

(c) arbitration, or

(d) mediation ….”

*This case is current subject to an appeal to the UK Supreme

Court. 107. The respondent conceded the report of [NAME_31] was caught by the

operation of this statutory provision and was therefore not payable by

the applicant [NAME_42]. The tribunal accepts the

respondent’s concession and finds there where proof of an applicant

26

being a qualifying leaseholder is provided this sum is not payable by

them in their percentage share. 108. As this tribunal is bound by the Court of Appeal decision in [COMPANY_28] v [NAME_29] at Hippersley Point the tribunal finds

that from 28 June 2022, no further service charges of the relevant type

are payable, irrespective of whether the costs have been incurred or the

service charges had been demanded and were payable before that date. Legal and professional fees 109. In closing submissions, the respondent conceded that the costs of the

[NAME_30] reports were not recoverable from the leaseholders. 110. However, the cost of the [NAME_32] specialist software were not

conceded by the respondent and the tribunal finds these costs have

been reasonably incurred by the respondent. The tribunal finds the

initial higher outlay is likely to lead to cost savings in the future in

respect of the respondent being able to utilise it itself rather than

employing an agent on its behalf. Management fees 111. The tribunal finds that overall, the respondent’s managing agents have

been proactive and responsive in the management of this [NAME_8]. The

tribunal accepts that [NAME_9] have not been responsible for the billing of

electricity as this does not accept the applicants’ assertion of poor

management to the extent alleged or at all during the period in dispute 112. The tribunal finds the evidence of [NAME_13] from [NAME_9] to be both

credible and persuasive in how this complex [NAME_8] was managed in

light of the numerous issues that arose, many of which were outside of

the managing agent’s control. The tribunal finds the managing agents

were responsive to the numerous requests for information from the

applicants and that its duties increased due to fire safety issues without

a commensurate increase in fees. Therefore, the tribunal declines to

reduce the fixed management fees as proposed by the applicants or at all. General maintenance costs 113. The tribunal finds the costs of (1) The temporary expansion vessels

(£6,187.66) and (2) The BMS Maintenance contract (£8,610) in 2020

did require s.20 consultation as the costs exceeded £250 for some

leaseholders. Although the tribunal accepts the respondents written and

oral evidence on these issues and finds the works that were undertaken

were carried out were both reasonable in their nature and extent and

reasonable in cost, it nevertheless finds the costs of these works are

27

limited to £250 per leaseholder unless a successful application for

dispensation is made. Long-term qualifying agreements 114. The tribunal finds there is no evidence that the contracts referred to by

the applicants as:

(i) The HIU maintenance contracts;

(ii) The replacement of the expansion vessel;

(iii) The BMS costs in 2020;

(iv) [NAME_27] costs;

(v) [NAME_30] report fees; and

(vi) [NAME_26] report fees

were long-term qualifying agreements pursuant to the 1985 Act. The

tribunal accepts the respondent’s evidence, as supported by the

witness statements and documents, that it had not entered into any long-

term qualifying agreements that required s.20 consultation with the

applicants. s.20c – dispensation 115. The tribunal does not consider or determine any (informal) application

for dispensation from consultation made by the respondent. However,

it is hoped the applicants can take a pragmatic view of whether any

application, if required, is likely to be successful, in view of the nature of

the works carried out particularly if they concerned issues of heating,

lighting, water and safety. Section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 116. In view of the above findings and determinations the tribunal considers

it is just and equitable to make an order under s.20 Landlord and Tenant

Act 1985, so that none of the respondent’s costs of this application can

be added to the service charges.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 25 February 2026

28

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written 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 (Lands Chamber).