First-tier Tribunal Reviews Service Charges for 2018

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/29UN/LSC/2020/0093

Property

:

[NAME_1], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant

:

[redacted] list on page 2)

Representative

:

[NAME_2]

Respondent

:

[redacted]

:

[COMPANY_7] of Application

:

Service charges: section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge E Morrison

Date of Decision

:

10 September 2021

DECISION

2 List of Applicants

[NAME_2] – (Flat) 11B [NAME_8] – 6F [NAME_10] – 15B [NAME_13] -11C [NAME_16] – 5A [NAME_19] – 5H [NAME_22] & [NAME_25] – 13F [NAME_28] & [NAME_30] – 10H Gaye & [NAME_33] – 15G Paul & [NAME_35] – 13H [NAME_37] & [NAME_40] – 11E [NAME_41] – 4G Sue & [NAME_4] Line – 18D [NAME_45] – 11E [NAME_48] – 16E [NAME_51] – 9F [NAME_54] – 12C [NAME_57] – 15H [NAME_60] & [NAME_62] – 3E [NAME_64] – 11F [NAME_66] & [NAME_68] – 6C [NAME_71] – 10A [NAME_76] – 2G [NAME_80] – 6E [NAME_83] – 7E [NAME_86] – 9B [NAME_89] – 13D [NAME_92] – 2B [NAME_94] – 3B [NAME_97] – 16C [NAME_99] & [NAME_101] – 5G & 8B [NAME_104] – 13C [NAME_107] – 10C

The Application

1. On 12 October 2020 a number of the lessees of flats at [NAME_1], Margate made an application to the Tribunal for a determination of the service charge for 2018, pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”). The value of the service charges in dispute was said to be £77,023.93.

2. The Applicants also sought orders limiting recovery of the Respondent [NAME_110]’s costs in the proceedings under Section 20C of the Act and/or paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

3

Background

3. This is the fourth time that the Tribunal has been required to determine service charges for [NAME_1]. In 2009 the Tribunal dealt with service charge years 2002 – 2008. In 2015 the Tribunal dealt with years 2009 – 2011 and budgets for 2013-2014. In 2019 the Tribunal dealt with years 2013 – 2017 and the budget for 2018, and the decision in that case (Case Ref. CHI/29UN/LIS/2018/0039) is referred to herein as “the 2019 decision”.

4. The judge dealing with the current application also sat on the previous two applications. On both those occasions the Tribunal carried out an inspection of [NAME_1] before the hearings and the judge is therefore familiar with the property.

5. As in the previous cases, [NAME_111], the lessee of Flat 11F, represents the lessees (in 2015 he was the sole lessee party).

6. In all the applications, despite the best efforts of the Tribunal, the parties have produced unnecessarily large bundles. In the current case, the original bundle ran to over 1800 pages and was rejected. The Tribunal required that the number of Applicant witness statements be reduced from 35 to a maximum of 6, and that other revisions be made so the amended bundle (excluding authorities) now runs to 837 pages.

7. The parties have not requested an oral hearing, and following a review of the amended bundle, the Tribunal considered that the application was suitable for determination on the papers alone. This decision is therefore made on the basis only of what is in the amended bundle, the separate authorities bundle, which includes the previous Tribunal decisions, and correspondence received from the parties in response to queries by the judge during her deliberations.

8. The proceedings in 2019 were notable for the fact that the [NAME_110] failed to engage properly in the proceedings. Despite a huge number of challenges made to items of expenditure by [NAME_112], the vast majority were not met with any evidence in response. Despite a two day hearing, the Respondent served no witness statements and no-one gave oral evidence on its behalf. As stated at para. 30 of the 2019 decision, the Tribunal’s findings must be viewed in that context.

9. The situation today is otherwise. The Respondent has produced detailed witness statements from [NAME_113], its Head of Residential Property Management, from [NAME_116], Head of Operations at [NAME_118]) Property Management Limited (“[NAME_119]”) – the managing agents in 2018, and from [NAME_120] of [NAME_122] (“[NAME_123]”) – the current managing agents.

4 10. Some of the lessees’ challenges to expenditure are the same or similar to those made previously. It does not follow that that the Tribunal must reach the same conclusion on those challenges in this case, because the [NAME_110] may now have produced evidence which affects the outcome.

11. Having said that, certain points of principle were decided in the 2019 decision which were not dependent on the evidence, and which remain applicable in these proceedings.

[NAME_1]

12. [NAME_1] is an 18 storey tower block built in the early 1960s as part of a larger development which includes [NAME_124], comprising some 50 shop units and a multi-storey car park. In 2019 the shops had been vacant and boarded up for some time. [NAME_1] itself there are 142 flats over 18 floors, the flats being accessed from corridors running the length of the building that are sub-divided by fire doors. 106 flats are demised on long leases, and the remaining 36 flats are retained by the Respondent and let out to tenants.

13. On the internal ground floor of [NAME_1] is the entrance lobby leading to access to the two lifts and to the fire escape staircases, a porter’s office, a store room, and the electricity meter room. Outside there is an undercroft area with access to the refuse chute collection area and pump room.

14. Above the 18th floor is a loft area housing water tanks and the lift motors/controls. Doors give access to the rooftop which houses a number of telecommunication aerials and communications equipment belonging to third parties.

The leases

15. There are least three different forms of lease in existence, but fortunately the differences between them are slight for the purposes of this application, and will only be referred to where necessary. All require the lessee to pay a service charge in a specified percentage (which varies from flat to flat). Payments on account may be required on 25 March and 29 September. At the end of the service charge year on 31 December, a full account must be prepared. The lessee must pay any balance owed, or the [NAME_110] must credit the lessee, as appropriate. Save where mentioned below, it is agreed that the expenditure comprised in the service charge falls within categories payable under the terms of the leases.

The issues

16. The service charge accounts for 2018 were signed off by the accountants on about 7 August 2020 and then sent out to the lessees. The claimed expenditure totals £202,284.00, compared with £187,652.00 in 2017 (before reduction by the Tribunal to £168,661.00).

5 The categories of expenditure listed the Income and Expenditure Account match those used in the expenditure analysis spreadsheet maintained by [NAME_119] (Bundle p159).

17. A Scott Schedule has been prepared by the parties. Fortunately, in the course of the proceedings and following disclosure of information by the Respondent, a number of items of expenditure that were disputed have now been agreed. Either the Applicants have agreed that the sum claimed is payable, or the Respondent has agreed to cancel or reduce the charge. Attached to this decision is a Decision Spreadsheet, based on the original expenditure analysis spreadsheet, which sets out the amounts allowed by the Tribunal for each item of expenditure, and incorporates the concessions made by the parties.

18. The remaining items in dispute are dealt with category by category below. The Tribunal’s decision on each individual item is noted in the final column of the Scott Schedule also attached to this decision.

Whether costs are reasonably incurred

19. Under section 19 of the Act service charge 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.

20. Many of the challenges made by the Applicants are on the grounds that the work carried out by contractors has not provided a long term solution to an issue, or has not addressed every problem arising. In some cases it is said that the work would not have been necessary if the Respondent had taken action earlier. However, the reasonableness of incurring costs does not depend upon whether the repairs ought to have been allowed to accrue or how the need for remedy arose. This was made clear by the Lands Tribunal in Continental Ventures v White [2006] 1 EGLR 85 and more recently in Daejan v Griffin [2014] UKUT 0206 (LC). In Daejan the Upper Tribunal explained that the only route by which an allegation of historic neglect may provide a defence to a claim for service charges is if it can be shown that but for a failure by the landlord to make good a defect at the time required by its covenant, part of the cost eventually incurred in remedying that defect, or the whole of the cost of remedying consequential defects would have been avoided.

21. As for work which effects a temporary repair but not a permanent solution, the question is whether the course of action has lead to a reasonable outcome. In Waaler v Hounslow LBC [2017] UKUT 154 (LC) the lessees argued that the [NAME_110] should have chosen to repair windows rather than replace them at greater cost. [ADDRESS] of Appeal said that whether costs were “reasonably incurred” within the meaning of section 19(1)(a) of the Act was to be determined by reference to an objective standard of reasonableness. The focus of the inquiry was not

6 simply a question of the landlord's decision-making process but was also one of outcome; where a landlord had chosen a course of action which led to a reasonable outcome, the costs of pursuing that course of action would have been reasonably incurred (even if there were a cheaper outcome which was also reasonable). In the case of [NAME_1], the lessees object to paying for temporary repairs, but the issue for the Tribunal is whether the outcome is reasonable. There are other courses of action available to lessees who consider that their [NAME_110] is not adequately performing its repairing obligations under the lease.

Employee equipment

22. The Applicants object to paying monthly charges totalling £422.40 for a broadband connection through the telephone landline to the caretaker’s office, on the ground that the internet has never been installed. During the Tribunal’s inspection in 2019, this was verbally confirmed by the caretaker, and in the 2019 decision the costs were disallowed.

23. [NAME_125] states that broadband “is provided to be made use of by the caretaker” and if disconnected and later reconnected there would be a charge for this. [NAME_112] says the caretaker had an internet connection through his mobile telephone in any event.

24. Doing the best it can on this evidence, the Tribunal concludes that although the caretaker could have used broadband in his office in 2018, he did not do so because it was never physically installed e.g. by setting up a router. On this basis, the cost was, through no fault of the Applicants, completely wasted and cannot be regarded as reasonably incurred. The cost is disallowed.

Communal cleaning

25. These costs are in fact the charges of [NAME_126], for providing a full -time caretaker. The leases provide that the cost of maintaining the common parts and employing a “porter” is recoverable though the service charge. One version of the lease includes in the [NAME_110]’s covenants an obligation to maintain the services of a porter for the performance of the following duties: “To cleanse the entrance hall stairs and passages and attend to the lighting and extinguishing of the lights therein”.

26. The caretaker’s Job Description provides further clarification of his duties. They include carrying out “small areas of redecoration as agreed with the estate manager”. [NAME_119]’s February 2018 Action Plan states that maintenance tasks should be undertaken on Tuesdays and Thursdays. His Rota provides for approximately 10% of his 40 hour week to be spent on [NAME_124] (the commercial area).

7 27. [NAME_126] 54780 is challenged on the ground that the caretaker, rather than another [NAME_126] operative, should have been used for one hour’s repainting of a wall, to cover some marks, the paint being available onsite. [NAME_125] suggests it was reasonable to use another contractor where additional work by the caretaker would detract from his core duties of cleaning .

28. This was a small job and the scope of the caretaker’s duties are not limited by the specific references to those of a “porter” in the lease, but are defined by what [NAME_119]/[NAME_126] have agreed he should do. It is clear that these duties can include minor maintenance and decorating. There is no evidence that he could not have repainted the wall as part of his duties, and the Tribunal finds the cost of employing another person was unreasonably incurred.

29. However, the main challenge to expenditure under this head relates to the claim that 10% of the monthly fee charged by [NAME_126] for the caretaker’s services should be paid by the Respondent, as that work relates to [NAME_124] for which the lessees have no responsibility. In the 2019 decision the Tribunal accepted that argument, in the absence of any contrary evidence from the Respondent. However, the Respondent has now produced evidence that [NAME_126] invoices the Respondent separately for the caretaker’s time on [NAME_124] duties and that these costs go through the [NAME_124] service charges.

30. On the basis of this new evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the costs billed to the lessees represent only the cost of the caretaker’s services to [NAME_1]. [NAME_112] asserts that even while at [NAME_1] the caretaker has to spend time allowing engineers from various outside companies to access the telecommunications equipment on the roof there is no evidence that this is anything but de minimis.

31. There is no other credible challenge to the monthly [NAME_126] charges for the caretaker and they are allowed.

Lift maintenance

32. The cost of lift maintenance in 2018 was £40,065.00 against a budget of £10,000.00 and 2017 costs of £16,051.00 (which were unchallenged).

33. The lifts at [NAME_1] are the original lifts and are thus approaching 50 years old. In 2018 one or other of the lifts continually broke down, and there are around 90 invoices from [NAME_127], mostly for call-outs (many out of hours) and repairs. 36 of these invoices are disputed. The worst period was in November 2018, when there were 9 call-outs over two days. Many of the call-outs were as a result of one or other lift not working, but after the contractor carried out a “re-set”, it worked again. On other occasions, the lift was found to be working again by the time the contractor arrived on site. On a few

8 occasions investigation revealed a more significant problem, and repairs were then carried out, including one occasion where the Fire Service had to attend as people were stuck in the lift, causing damage as they rescued them.

34. [NAME_112] says that resetting the lift merely involves the momentary shutting off of the power supply to the lift using an isolation breaker in the ground floor electricity intake room or on the 19th floor. He notes that £3900.57 was paid during this year for 12 service visits from [NAME_127], and submits that if the lifts had been properly serviced, and the ongoing intermittent fault causing the lifts to stop working remedied, the costs of call-outs for frequent breakdowns would have been avoided.

35. The Respondent says that whenever a lift was not working, it was reasonable to require the contractors to attend. This is an 18 storey tower block, where residents are clearly dependent on the lifts. They cannot be left out of order. [NAME_125] exhibits a report from [NAME_127] prepared in 2014 which confirms that the drive system for the lifts is technically obsolete and well beyond the typical 25 year life span. It recommends replacement of the main operating equipment and various other upgrades if not full replacement. In early 2018 [NAME_127] provided further quotes for repairs and complete replacement. An email from the Managing Director provided for the purposes of these proceedings in January 2021 discusses the unpredictable nature of the problems occurring with the lifts and repeats that they are way beyond their serviceable life. He estimates that the lifts are used over 73,000 times each year, and blames the ongoing problems on the fact that his company’s ongoing advice about required upgrades was not acted upon. He states that in 2019 Lift 2 was switched off permanently because it was unsafe.

36. A letter from the Managing Director of Technical Lift Consultancy Ltd dated 31 July 2019 states he is amazed that [NAME_127] have managed to keep the lifts going for so long without modifications, and that both lifts are at the stage where critical failure is inevitable.

37. The Tribunal concludes that all the disputed invoices from [NAME_127] are for costs that were reasonably incurred. The Applicants have provided no evidence from a lift expert. There is no evidence that call- outs were required unnecessarily, or that the outcome (leaving the lifts in service or, rarely, awaiting further repairs) was not reasonable. It makes no difference even if the call-outs were necessitated by the [NAME_110]’s failure to arrange a more permanent solution (see paras. 20-21 above). Nor is there any evidence that the charging rates were unreasonably high, or that the work done was not done to a reasonable standard. The costs are all allowed.

38. There is one further invoice, from [NAME_129], dated 8 June 2018 which is not for work on the lifts but for carrying out a condition survey and producing a quote for refurbishment. [NAME_130] supplied the original

9 lifts almost 50 years ago and [NAME_125] says it was thought appropriate to get a quote from them. The Applicants object to paying this invoice on the basis that it was not disclosed to them, and it was not until 2020 that any real action was taken with regard to proceeding with major works to the lifts. The witness statement of [NAME_22] (Flat 13F) refers to a number of other reports on works required to the lifts and quotes obtained from other companies in 2018.

39. The expenditure spreadsheet contains no evidence that any other of the companies who provided quotes in 2018 for lift works have charged for this, and given that other companies were providing quotes, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it was reasonable to procure a quote from [NAME_130] which had to be paid for. The report does not appear to have been utilised in any way by the Respondent, even in a 2020 application to the Tribunal for dispensation from consultation. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred and it is disallowed.

Fire alarm/emergency lighting maintenance

40. The Applicants say that 50% of the annual cost from [NAME_131] for the fire alarm service should be disallowed because faults were showing on the fire alarm control box which should have been corrected. Another invoice was raised on 31 May 2018 “to investigate faults on the fire alarm panel” which the Applicants say is a cost that should have been covered by the service contract. In response [NAME_125] says that the annual maintenance cost includes inspection and service only and does not include call-outs and repairs outside of the maintenance inspection.

41. The contract with [NAME_131] is not in evidence. On a balance of probabilities the Tribunal is not satisfied that the service was not carried out to a reasonable standard or that the 31 May invoice was not covered by the service. The costs are allowed.

42. The Applicants also suggest that a further invoice from [NAME_131] for 3 hours work on 3 August 2019 should be disallowed as it overlaps with the 16 hours of work charged by [NAME_131] in another invoice for work on the same date, and 19 hours of work by two engineers in one day is unlikely. Only the invoice for the smaller amount is in the bundle but [NAME_125] says that the larger one was for different work and that “details of works provided under both have been evidenced”.

43. Contrary to what [NAME_125] says the work done has not been evidenced. A rational challenge has been made by the Applicants and has not been sufficiently dealt with by the Respondent. The smaller invoice for £258.00 is disallowed.

10 Door entry system maintenance

44. The door entry system works though a remote key pad at the main entrance. This dials the designated telephone number of the flat requested to authorise entry. Therefore the system has to be updated whenever a telephone number changes. [NAME_132] is paid an annual fee to provide the equipment and system. In 2018 [NAME_133] raised a number of additional invoices for charges for attendances to update telephone numbers (up to £261.60 to update a single number).

45. [NAME_112] says that this had previously been done by the caretaker. [NAME_125] responds that it is not a function mentioned in the lease as a porter’s duty.

46. The Tribunal accepts what [NAME_112] says as no charges for this work were made in 2017. As stated above, what the lease says about a porter’s duty does not limit what the caretaker may be asked to do as part of his duties. The duties outlined in the job description include “To keep a record and frequently update all names, telephone numbers and points of contact for emergencies”. It is not reasonable to pay for a call- out for this simple task which can only take a minute or two per number. The charges are disallowed.

47. One further invoice for £261.60 relates to a call-out on 19 September 2018. According to the invoice [NAME_133] had been told that the door entry was not working but on arrival the caretaker said there was no problem, and that possibly a removal company had wedged the doors open. [NAME_125] suggests it was the lessee of 8A who reported the problem to [NAME_119], and it was reasonable for [NAME_119] to summon the contractor. [NAME_112] says [NAME_119] should first have checked with the caretaker and does not accept a lessee was involved in reporting. On balance the Tribunal allows the invoice on the basis that it is more likely than not that whoever arranged the call-out reasonably believed there was a problem with the door that needed fixing.

CCTV

48. The Applicants seek a 50% reduction in the cost of the annual service contract on the ground that not all cameras were showing clear images, and there is no evidence that these faults were rectified.

49. The invoices clearly itemise what work was done at each half-yearly visit, consisting of various checks, and separately notes remedial work required. The fact that the remedial work was not done does not affect the validity of the charge for the visit, there being no evidence that this was not done to a reasonable standard or as required under the contract. The charge is allowed in full.

11 Lightning Protection

50. [NAME_134] carried out repairs and upgrade to the lightning protector on the roof of the building. The Applicants submit that the lessees should only pay 33% of the cost, rather than 88% (the Respondent charging 12% to [NAME_124]). It is argued that commercial tenants using the roof for their equipment gain most benefit from the lightning protector, and that it is their equipment which increases the likelihood of a lightning strike. The lessees do not even have a TV aerial on the roof.

51. This issue was dealt with at paragraphs 71 -73 of the 2019 decision and applies equally now. The costs are chargeable to the lessees under the leases regardless of the benefit to third parties, unless it is established that third parties caused the cost to be incurred. There being no evidence of that being the case, the costs are allowed.

[NAME_135] and maintenance

52. There are 16 invoices in dispute. It is not proportionate to set out each side’s submissions in detail. Instead the following summary is provided.

[NAME_136] invoice 27567 – Emergency weekend call-out to investigate leak in Flat 1E. Contractor could not access stack pipe, reported, but heard nothing further from [NAME_119]. Cost allowed: reasonably incurred as no evidence there was not a genuine problem that required investigation and no evidence that follow up work not done by others.

[NAME_126] invoice 56456 – filling in hole and repainting. Not obviously within caretaker role. Cost allowed.

[NAME_137] 15517 – weekend (caretaker not available) call-out to clear refuse chute blockage which had cleared itself by time contractor arrived. Cost allowed as no evidence that not a genuine problem justifying call-out.

[NAME_126] invoice 58365 – for “removing bulky items off site”. Unauthenticated photos appear to show waste in commercial area. Residents are aware they are responsible for removal of their own items. It is unclear where the waste had originated. Disallow 50% of costs on basis cost should be shared with commercial area in absence of better information.

[NAME_136] invoice 27339 – Clearing of blocked gullies under building. Applicants suggest gulley deals with surface water from commercial area but no supporting evidence from contractor’s report. Cost allowed.

[NAME_138] 6549 – unblocking multiple rainwater gullies. No evidence not reasonably incurred. Cost allowed.

12 [NAME_126] invoice 60174 – repairing lights on 16th floor. Lights had also been repaired two weeks earlier by another contractor. Respondent concedes original contractor should have been recalled. Cost disallowed.

[NAME_126] invoice 60167 – four key safes supplied. Applicants say not a service charge item as Respondent does not need to store lessees’ keys. However the Purchase Order refers to safes “for residents spare keys”. [NAME_112] says that lessees were not notified that key safes were available for their own use. Cost disallowed on basis keys likely to have been those for flats retained by the Respondent.

[NAME_126] invoice 60611 – annual jet washing of bin store, walls and chutes taking 1 day. Applicants’ submission that caretaker should do this using machine on site not accepted. This is not general cleaning. Cost allowed.

[NAME_136] invoice 27613 –Call-out to investigate damp to wall between flats on 16th floor. No damp found raising doubt about call-out but another matter dealt with while on site. Unclear if issue with common parts but reasonable to summons contractor to investigate. 50% 0f cost allowed.

[NAME_136] invoice 28188 - roof repair to stop leak into flat below and clearing gutter. Applicants suggest repair required only due to footfall of third parties using the roof, but no evidence to support this. Cost allowed.

[NAME_126] invoice 69335 – attending to blocked soil stack in Flat 10D. [NAME_112] who lives directly above contends there was no blockage in the stack but the detail provided by the contractor contradicts this. Cost allowed with no deduction for sub-contracting by [NAME_126] as not established cost unreasonable.

[NAME_140] invoice MK19827 – service of refuse chutes. Applicants say not payable as fire doors to chutes were still not compliant with fire safety requirements and a new fire door was recommended. Cost allowed. No evidence that service not carried out to a reasonable standard; works found to be required are a separate matter.

[NAME_141] invoice NM6621 – call-out to check kitchen waste pipe in Flat 13D but contractor suspected blockage in main stack and quoted for the work. Further work later carried out by another contractor on three stacks. No evidence that concern related to main stack when [NAME_141] call-out requested. Blocked sink is lessee’s responsibility. Cost disallowed.

[NAME_119] invoices 102513 – cost of padlock and key safe. No evidence of reason for this. Cost disallowed.

[NAME_142] invoice 356 – unblocking of pipe in flat which was causing back up in other flats. Applicants suggest not payable as work

13 wholly within a flat so should have been paid for by the lessee. However the communal pipework must have been affected so 50% of cost allowed.

Reactive refuse removal

53. Five [NAME_126] invoices for removing bulky items are challenged. Some detail is available: on two occasions there were fridge freezers and there are photographs of a large furniture items. One invoice refers to two fridges being dumped on site. The Applicants say that residents should be responsible for the cost of removal of their own items, which the Respondent accepts, but says that where the responsible person cannot be identified it is still necessary to remove the waste, and the cost is reasonably incurred.

54. The Tribunal’s view is that management systems should be in place to ensure that residents cannot leave bulky items in the communal areas without first making appropriate arrangements for their removal and paying for this. It is not reasonable to require the lessees to pay for the removal of other people’s items, and to continue this practice will only encourage further dumping. The cost is therefore disallowed.

55. One other invoice is a charge for a Saturday attendance to unblock the bin chutes, carried out by the caretaker as overtime. The Respondent has already agreed to remove an [NAME_126] invoice for a failed attempt (due to lack of proper equipment) to clear the chute 3 days earlier. The Applicants say that the caretaker should have attended to this during his normal working hours, so there would have been no additional charge. There being no clear evidence that the caretaker could not have dealt with this during the working week, this cost is disallowed.

Fire risk assessment

56. On 3 July 2018 [NAME_143] carried out a Fire Risk Assessment Review costing £2274.00. The Applicants object to paying this, on the ground that the previous assessment costing £1860.00 in July 2017 had recommended a further review in July 2019, and in July 2018 most of the 2017 recommendations had still not been acted upon. On 17 July 2018 Kent Fire & Rescue Service (KFRS) inspected and in August 2018 they issued a formal Notice serving a Schedule of works to be carried out by February 2019.

57. [NAME_125] says that by July 2018 much of the work recommended in the 2017 assessment had been done, and that the remaining works required section 20 consultation, which began in December 2018. Given the involvement of KFRS it was reasonable to have a further assessment in July 2018, which then recommended annual reviews.

58. Given the heightened attention to fire safety following the Grenfell disaster in 2017 it cannot be regarded as unreasonable to commission annual fire safety assessments for an 18 storey tower block, regardless

14 of the extent to which the 2017 recommendations had already been carried out. The cost is allowed.

Accountancy fee

59. The accountants have charged £1500.00 + VAT to complete and sign off the service charge accounts. In 2017 the charge was £1200.00 + VAT. The Applicants say this increase is unjustified. Not much work is required as the accountants can simply transpose the figures from the expenditure spreadsheet maintained by [NAME_119].

60. The Applicants also criticise various elements of the accounts but these criticisms have been adequately answered in the Respondent’s statement of case. The Respondent has produced the accountants’ time records, and the Tribunal is satisfied from these that the cost is reasonable and should be allowed.

Management fees

61. Management throughout 2018 was carried out by [NAME_119], who charged £2556.34 (inc. VAT) per month, a 2.5% increase on the 2017 charge.

62. In the 2019 decision the Tribunal reduced the recoverable management fees by 20% to reflect a litany of management failures (see paras. 89- 94).

63. In their first statement of case in these proceedings, the Applicants sought a 60% reduction of the fees in 2018. This has now been amended to 30%. The Applicants rely on the following:

• Delayed production of the 2018 service charge accounts until August 2020 • Alleged payment of invoices where no work has been carried out • Increase in the number of jobs passed by [NAME_119] to [NAME_126], a sister company • Duplicated charges in the expenditure spreadsheets • Obtaining of unnecessary reports and then doing nothing in respect of recommended works • Failure to implement fire safety measures leading to intervention by KFRS, including non-closing fire doors in the corridors • Continuing to charge heads of expenditure disallowed by the Tribunal in 2019 • Failing to address lessees’ concerns re lights not working • Failure to repair damaged corridor walls • Failure to implement majority of items listed on [NAME_119]’s own Action Plan drawn up in February 2018, notably refurbishment of the lifts, foyer and lift lobby redecoration, repair/replacement of the many broken/missing floor tiles • Lack of response to residents’ communications to [NAME_119] • Inadequate standard of cleaning of common parts.

15

64. The Respondent answers as follows:

• The majority of the lessees have not been party to the repeated Tribunal proceedings • The leases require that the end of year accounts be prepared “so soon after the end of the [NAME_110]’s financial year as may be practicable”. Given the change of managing agents in November 2019 and the need to consider the 2019 decision the requirements of the lease have been met. • Errors on the service charge calculations have been few, including duplications • The Tribunal found no evidence of cleaning not being done to a reasonable standard when it inspected in 2019 and challenges for previous years on this ground were rejected • The 2019 decision had not been received when the 2018 costs were incurred.

65. The Tribunal repeats what was said in the 2019 decision at para. 93: [NAME_1] is not a straightforward property to manage. It is a high rise block with mixed tenure occupancy, third party usage of common parts, and aged equipment requiring regular call-outs. [NAME_119]’s fee works out to an average of £216.03 per annum per flat, which is very modest by today’s standards, particularly given that there is a full-time caretaker on site. However, [NAME_119] has agreed to provide a reasonable service for that price.

66. While the Respondent has not disputed all of the Applicants’ complaints, the Tribunal is less concerned about various aspects of management than it was previously in light of evidence now given on behalf of the Respondent. [NAME_126] has still been used as a middleman in some situations, there is no evidence this has inflated costs to an unreasonable level. The criticism that people have been paid for carrying out no work is unfair. The errors/discrepancies in the expenditure summary have been few and corrected by the Respondent once pointed out. The 2020 accounts were delayed but not as badly as in some previous years and there was no prejudice to lessees as section 20B notices were sent out with an expenditure summary.

67. However, certain matters still indicate that management has not overall been to a reasonable standard. The principal concerns are (a) tardiness in carrying out works recommended in the 2017 Fire Safety Report, (b) tardiness in tackling the problem of the failing lifts (c) failing to carry out works identified to be done in [NAME_119]’s own Action Plan.

68. Taking everything into account the Tribunal concludes that it is right to disallow 10% of the management fees.

16 Out of hours fees

69. [NAME_119] charges a monthly “out of hours” fee of £45.76 inc. VAT which the Applicants dispute. The Tribunal previously disallowed this as there was no evidence that this service was not covered by the normal management fee. It has now been clarified that [NAME_119] took over the obligations of the previous managing agent, [NAME_144], and that the agreement between the Respondent and [NAME_144] still applied in 2018. The Respondent relies on the terms of that agreement to say that the out of hours fee is permitted. The Tribunal disagrees. While services additional to the Services may be charged for, the Management Services section of the agreement requires that an Out of Hours contact number be available as part of the normal service. Meetings held outside normal hours may be charged at double time but there is no evidence that the monthly fee has any connection with such meetings. The fee is accordingly disallowed.

Banking charges

70. £63.00 (£5.25 per month) for [NAME_119]’s bank charges is also disputed. In the 2019 decision the Tribunal noted that the only clause in the lease which might cover this was “the fees of the [NAME_110]’s managing agents for the collection of the rents of the flats in the said buildings and for the general management thereof”. There was no evidence that [NAME_119] was entitled to charge the Respondent for bank charges on top of its normal management fee and the cost was disallowed. That remains the position and the same decision is reached now.

Other challenges

71. Although the Applicants’ statement of case raised a number of other issues aside from challenges to various items of expenditure, it has been confirmed that the only matters now pursued are those in the Scott Schedule, all of which have been dealt with above.

Calculation of service charge

72. The attached completed Scott Schedule sets out, in the final column, the Tribunal’s decision on each challenged item of expenditure.

73 The sums determined by the Tribunal and concessions made by the parties have been recorded in the final column of the attached Decision Spreadsheet, from which it can be seen that the total service charge recoverable for 2018 is determined in the sum of £179,926.19.

17 Costs

74. In the absence of submissions from either side the Tribunal’s provisional determination is that no order will be made under section 20C of the Act, and that (the application having been made by the lessees) no order is necessary under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. If either party disagrees, they may make written submissions (maximum 2 pages) within 14 days of receipt of this Decision. In the absence of further submissions the provisional determination on this point will become final.

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application by email to [EMAIL] to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

SCHEDULE DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR 2018

Case CHI/29UN/LSC/2020/0093 Premises: [NAME_1]: [EMAIL] [ADDRESS] [EMAIL] Margate [IWOV-LONDON.FID473482]

No ITEM COST TENANT'S COMMENTS LANDLORD'S COMMENTS AGREED? LEAVE BLANK(FOR THE TRIBUNAL) 1. [COMPANY_145] – no invoices produced – spreadsheet entries only 13 redacted invoices subsequently produced by Respondent. All 13 of those invoices are disputed in full. £422.40 Unreasonably incurred per paras 19 and 20 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 38 to 40.

Not agreed. Broadband cost previously disallowed by the Tribunal.

DISALLOWED 2. [NAME_126] invoice 54780 Invoice disputed in full.

£90.00 Unreasonably incurred per paras 21 and 22 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 41 Not agreed. 1 hour of painting using paint on site can be done by caretaker.

DISALLOWED

3. [NAME_126] invoices for communal cleaning/care taking 12 invoices produced – 10% of each invoice disputed. £37,757. 40 Should be reduced by 10% per paras 23 to 26 of Statement of Case – sum payable £33,981.66

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 42 Not agreed. 10% previously disallowed by Tribunal. Respondent confirms £3,951 recharged to commercial.

ALLOWED 4. [NAME_127] invoice 11281 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per paras 27 to 29 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed. There are approx. 90 attendances for the lift in one year including routine servicing at a cost of £38,508. Some 36 of those attendances remain challenged in the sum of £12,336.

ALLOWED 5. [NAME_127] invoice 11243 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 30 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed.

ALLOWED 6. [NAME_127] invoice 11244 Invoice £204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 31 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed. ALLOWED

disputed in full.

7. [NAME_127] invoice 11285 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 32 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 8. [NAME_127] invoice 11280 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 33 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 9. [NAME_127] invoice 11254 Invoice disputed in full.

£1,368.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per para 34 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 10. [NAME_127] invoice 11284 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 35 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 11. [NAME_127] £204.00 Unreasonably Denied. See Witness Not agreed ALLLOWED

invoice 11282 Invoice disputed in full.

incurred per para 36 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 12. [NAME_127] invoice 11286 £156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 37 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 44 Agreed.

ALLOWED 13. [NAME_127] invoice 11384 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 38 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 14. [NAME_127] invoice 11419 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 39 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed.

ALLOWED 15. [NAME_127] invoice 11409 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 40 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED

16. [NAME_127] invoice 11412 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 41 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 17. [NAME_127] invoice 11439 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 42 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 18. [NAME_127] invoice 11440 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 43 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 19. [NAME_127] invoice 11539 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 44 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 20. [NAME_127] invoice 11459 Invoice £156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 45 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed.

ALLOWED

disputed in full.

21. [NAME_127] invoice 11538 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 46 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 22. [NAME_127] invoice 11540 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 47 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed.

ALLOWED 23. [NAME_127] invoice 11495 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 48 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 24. [NAME_127] invoice 11624 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 49 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 25. [NAME_127] £204.00 Unreasonably Denied. See Witness Not agreed. ALLOWED

invoice 11623 Invoice disputed in full.

incurred per para 50 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 26. [NAME_127] invoice 11688 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 51 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed. ALLOWED 27. [NAME_127] invoice 11690 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 52 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 28. [NAME_127] invoice 11689 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 53 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 29. [NAME_127] invoice 11687 Invoice disputed in £204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 54 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED

full.

30. [NAME_127] invoice 11622 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 55 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 43 Not agreed.

ALLOWED 31. [NAME_127] invoice 11429 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 56 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 32. [NAME_127] invoice 11692 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 57 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 33. [NAME_127] invoice 11686 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 58 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 34. [NAME_127] invoices £8,455.2 0 Duplication and unreasonably incurred See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph Agreed. (£4,227.60 to be 50% ALLOWED (£4227.60)

11736 and 11740 per paras 59 to 61 of Statement of Case – sum payable £4,227.60

45

Duplication agreed – credit of £4,227.60 to be awarded to applicants [credit to follow from [NAME_127]] credited back to lessees). 35. [NAME_127] invoice 11853 Invoice disputed in full.

£1,020.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per para 62 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 36. [NAME_127] invoice 11741 Invoice disputed in full.

£816.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 63 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 37. [NAME_127] invoice 11749 Invoice disputed in full.

£156.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 64 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 38. [NAME_127] invoice £1,536.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per para 65 Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_67] Not agreed.

ALLOWED

11776 Invoice disputed in full.

of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

[NAME_117] paragraph 43 39. [NAME_127] invoice 11739 Invoice disputed in full.

£204.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 66 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 40. [NAME_127] invoice 11852 50% of invoice disputed due to two attendances within 15 minutes. £408.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 67 of Statement of Case – sum payable £204.00

ALLOWED 41. [NAME_127] invoice 11943 Invoice disputed in full.

£408.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 68 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

ALLOWED 42. [NAME_147] invoice 11123029 £1,296.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per paras 68 and 69 of Statement Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 46 to 48 Not agreed. ( It transpires this was a quote for lift

DISALLOWED

Invoice disputed in full.

of Case – sum payable nil

refurbishment that was never carried out). 43. [NAME_132] invoice 75433660 £261.60 Unreasonably incurred per paras 71 to 73 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 49

Agreed cost is for tenant direct. Sum payable £0. [Recharge to landlord] Agreed. (Cost of £261.60 be credited back to lessees despite initial denial).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 44. Five lift maintenance items on spreadsheet for which no invoices have been produced £4,020.0 0 £204.00 £156.00 £312.00 £408.00 No evidence of expenditure. 18 month rule applies. See paras 73 to 75 of Statement of Case. Sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 50 to 51

[NAME_123] have confirmed that these accruals will be reversed in the 2019 service charge accounts.

Agreed. (Total of £5,100 to be credited back to lessees despite initial denial).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 45. [NAME_131] invoices 32002 and 37536 Invoice disputed in part due to poor alarm maintenance.

£3,208.5 9 Unreasonably incurred per paras 76 and 77 of Statement of Case – sum payable £2,365.87

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 52 to 54 Not agreed. (A reduction of £842.72 is sought in respect of the invoice total of £3,208.59).

ALLOWED 46. [NAME_131] £114.00 Unreasonably Denied. See Witness Not agreed. ALLOWED

invoice 36618 Invoice disputed in full.

incurred per para 78 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 55 to 56 47. [NAME_131] invoice 37353 £210.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 79 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 57 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 48. [NAME_131] invoice 36505 £114.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 80 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 58 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 49. [NAME_131] invoice 38914 £186.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 81 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 59 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

50. [NAME_131] invoice 38363 £174.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 82 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 60 Agreed

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 51. [NAME_131] invoices 38902 and 38928 Invoice 38902 for £258.00 £840.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 83 of Statement of Case – sum payable £549.00

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 61 Not agreed. (£258 reduction sought as19 hours work by 2 engineers in one day is unlikely and not sufficiently

£258 DISALLOWED, BALANCE ALLOWED

£258.00 disputed in full due to overlap with invoice 38928

proved. £840 for 16 hours work now accepted). 52. [NAME_131] invoice 39461 £126.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 84 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 62 and 63 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 53. [NAME_131] invoice 40021 £126.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 85 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 64 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 54. [NAME_132] invoice 75394357 £6,076.9 4 Unreasonably incurred per paras 86 and 87 of Statement of Case – sum payable £4,557.71

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 65 to 69 Agreed. (Balance of £1,519.23 accepted).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

55. [NAME_132] invoice 75419737 Invoice disputed in full.

£249.60 Unreasonably incurred per para 88 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 65 to 69 Not agreed. (See items 43 and 59 where Respondent recharges fob registration to tenant. However, new caretaker belatedly trained to carry out this task).

DISALLOWED 56. [NAME_132] invoice 75425283 Invoice disputed in full.

£261.60 Unreasonably incurred per para 89 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 65 to 69 Not agreed. (Failure by [NAME_119] to check fault with caretaker before summoning contractor).

ALLOWED 57. [NAME_132] invoice 75426157 Invoice disputed in full.

£261.60 Unreasonably incurred per para 90 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 65 to 69 Not agreed. (Fob update for resident – see item 55 above).

DISALLOWED 58. [NAME_132] invoice 75435710 Invoice disputed in full. £261.60 Unreasonably incurred per para 91 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

DISALLOWED

59. [NAME_132] invoice 75442025 £392.40 Unreasonably incurred per para 92 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 69

The respondent does not agree that the costs of training the caretaker to perform duties at the development is not justified and would submit that training for duties specifically related to the site should be a caretaker cost.

However, as there have been separate charges for fob and number programming which have not been carried out by the caretaker in this service charge year, we will accept the reduction sought.

The cost of £392.40 should therefore be credited to the residents Agreed. (£392.40 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 60. [NAME_132] invoice 75436463 £261.60 Unreasonably incurred per para 93 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 65 to 69 Not agreed. (Fob update for resident - See item 55 above).

DISALLOWED

Invoice disputed in full.

61. [NAME_155] invoices 1009020 and 10010190 Invoices disputed in part – 50% reduction claimed due to poor maintenance.

£236.59 £236.59 Unreasonably incurred per paras 94 to 97 of Statement of Case – sum payable £236.59

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 70 to 73 Not agreed. (Camera faults identified but not remedied).

ALLOWED 62. [COMPANY_156] invoice 63393 Invoice disputed in part – residential lessees should only pay 33% - additional £2,257.95 reduction claimed. £4,130.4 0 Unreasonably incurred per paras 98 to 104 of Statement of Case – sum payable £1,376.80

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 74 Not agreed. (Significant benefit received by the commercial telecoms aerials – no explanation as to how Respondent calculates 12% reduction is more than lessees are entitled to).

ALLLOWED

63. [COMPANY_156] invoice 67048 Invoice disputed in part as above – additional £127.92 claimed

£234.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 105 of Statement of Case – sum payable £78.00

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 75 Not agreed (as above).

ALLOWED 64. [NAME_148] invoices 107284, 109733, 112223, 114966 and 117843 £235.80, £235.80, £247.50, £247.50, £247.50 Unreasonably incurred per paras 106 to 109 of Statement of Case – sum payable £351.35 See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 76.

Accepted save that in paragraph 109 of the SOC the applicant has requested a reduction of £175.62 and not £352.35 as stated in the Scott Schedule. We agree the reduction of £175.62.

£175.62 is to be credited to the applicants [this cost is to be recharged to [NAME_124]] Agreed. (£175.62 to be credited back to lessees).

£175.62 DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT (BALANCE ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT) 65. [NAME_148] invoice 114790 £1,026.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per para 110 of Statement of Case Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 77 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

– sum payable nil

66. Pest control item on spreadsheet but invoice not produced £1,026.0 0 No evidence of expenditure. 18 month rule applies. Unreasonably incurred per paras 111 and 112 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 78

[NAME_123] have confirmed that these accruals will be reversed in the 2019 service charge accounts. Agreed. (Sum of £1,026 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 67. [NAME_175] electricity invoices £1,856.0 6 £1,692.3 0 £1,850.4 1 £1,799.3 8 £1,843.1 1 £1,791.4 8 £1,845.8 2 £1,846.3 Unreasonably incurred per paras 113 to 120 of Statement of Case – sum payable £20,243.41 Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 79 to 83 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

0 £2,046.9 3 £2,116.2 7 £2,050.1 5 £2,105.2 0

68. [NAME_126] invoice 53174 £195.14 Unreasonably incurred per paras 121 to 124 of Statement of Case – sum payable £156.12

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 84 and 85 Agreed (to save Tribunal time).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 69. [NAME_126] invoice 53603 £150.70 Unreasonably incurred per para 125 of Statement of Case – sum payable £120.56

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 70. [NAME_126] invoice 54796 £311.04 Unreasonably incurred per para 126 of Statement of Case – sum payable £155.52

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 86 and 87 Agreed (to save Tribunal time).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 71. [NAME_126] invoice 55217 £133.60 Unreasonably incurred per para 128 of Statement of Case – sum payable Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 88 and 89 Agreed (to save Tribunal time).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

£106.88

72. [NAME_136] invoice 27567 Invoice disputed in full.

£336.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 129 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 90 Not agreed. (Contractor from Essex but no leak found).

ALLOWED 73. [NAME_126] invoice 56456 Invoice disputed in full.

£100.92 Unreasonably incurred per para 130 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 91 Not agreed. (1 hour job that could have been carried out by caretaker).

ALLOWED 74. [NAME_126] invoice 57786 £90.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 131 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 92

It is accepted that this item should have been completed by the Agreed. (£90 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

caretaker and it was not necessary to dispatch a carpenter to complete the works.

It is noted however that the applicants make no dispute over the location or cost of the works, only that these should be been completed by the caretaker as part of their duties.

Agree to award £90 to the applicants 75. [NAME_126] invoice 58784 £107.16 Unreasonably incurred per para 132 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 93

On consideration of the applicants comments over this matter we agree with their view points and the request that the charge on this occasion is not reasonably incurred.

£107.16 to be credited to the applicants Agreed. (£107.16 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 76. [NAME_137] invoice 15517 Invoice £150.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 133 of Statement of Case Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 94 Not agreed. ALLOWED

disputed in full.

– sum payable nil

77. [NAME_126] invoice 58365 Invoice disputed in full.

£126.60 Unreasonably incurred per paras 134 and 135 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 95 and 96 Not agreed. (Rubbish in commercial area).

50% DISALLOWED (to include £15.19 already deducted)

78. [NAME_126] invoice 60166 £264.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 136 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 97

Please see attached [NAME_126] 60166 Photo's For reference.

This does appear to apply to the commercial areas only and should not have been included within the service charge accounts.

The applicants should be awarded £264 credit in this respect [cost to be recharged to Landlord @ Square] Agreed. (£264.00 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

79. [NAME_126] £373.97 Unreasonably Denied. See Witness Agreed (to save ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

invoice 58370

incurred per para 137 of Statement of Case – sum payable £299.18

Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 98 Tribunal time). 80. [NAME_126] 59325 £74.14 [this entry has been added by [NAME_119] as was missing from the copy of the Scott Schedule sent for our comment] See 138 of Applicants SoC for comments Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 99 Agreed

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 81. [NAME_136] invoice 27339 Invoice disputed in full.

£432.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 139 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 100 Not agreed. (This is surface water on commercial area).

ALLOWED 82. [NAME_126] invoice 59795 £673.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 140 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 101 and 102 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 83. [NAME_138] invoice 6549 Invoice disputed in full.

£252.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 141 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 103 Not agreed. (See item 81 above).

ALLOWED

84. [NAME_126] invoice 60174 Invoice disputed in full.

£345.60 Unreasonably incurred per paras 142 to 145 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 104 Not agreed. ([NAME_126] called to investigate recent works by [NAME_137]).

DISALLOWED 85. [NAME_140] invoice MK 19098 £1,416.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per para 146 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 105 Agreed. (First half year service agreed).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 86. [NAME_126] invoice 60167 Invoice disputed in full.

£218.40 Unreasonably incurred per para 147 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 106 Not agreed. (Key safes provided for spare keys to landlords 36 flats).

DISALLOWED 87. [NAME_126] invoice 60611 Invoice disputed in full.

£295.20 Unreasonably incurred per para 148 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 107 Not agreed. (Jet washing took place on one day in the entire year, not multiple days, so could have been caretaker task).

ALLOWED 88. [NAME_126] invoice 62780 £220.08 Unreasonably incurred per para 149 of Statement of Case – sum payable £176.08

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 108 Agreed (to save Tribunal time).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

89. [NAME_136] invoice 27613 Invoice disputed in full.

£168.00 Unreasonably incurred per paras 150 and 151 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 109 Not agreed. (Alleged damp patch should have been investigated by caretaker [NAME_103] to calling contractor).

50% ALLOWED 90. [NAME_126] invoice 63643 £3,261.8 9 Unreasonably incurred per para 152 of Statement of Case – sum payable £2,537.52

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 110 and 111 Agreed. (Detail of number of light fittings now forthcoming).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 91. [NAME_126] invoice 64137 £168.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 153 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 112

Agree this is unreasonable given the works were not completed satisfactorily

Applicants to be credited £168 Agreed. (£168 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 92. [NAME_126] invoice 66284 £46.39 Unreasonably incurred per para 154 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 113

Further details identify that these were materials to secure the harass fencing which is a cost for Agreed. (£46.39 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

the commercial landlord and not the residential leaseholders.

Credit of £46.39 to be applied [recharge to [NAME_124]] 93. [NAME_136] invoice 28103 £336.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 155 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 114

Having considered the applicants comments, we accept this is not a reasonable service charge cost.

This is considering the time elapsed from the date of report and the fact that the caretaker reported a leak and was then unable to identify this when the contractor attended.

We do not accept the applicant statement that costs should not be considered based upon locality of contractor.

Agree award of £336 to the applicants Agreed. (£336 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

94. [NAME_136] invoice 28188 Invoice disputed in part – residential lessees agree 50% of labour to clear roof gutters but not to repair damage to roof felt by telecoms engineers - £627.00 disputed.

£1,074.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per paras 156 and 157 of Statement of Case – sum payable £447.00

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 115 to 117 Not agreed. (Applicant offers part payment).

ALLOWED 95. [NAME_148] invoice 115807 £162.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 158 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 118 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 96. [NAME_126] invoice 69335 Invoice disputed in full now that circumstance and location have been £295.82 Unreasonably incurred per para 159 of Statement of Case – sum payable £236.66

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 119 Not agreed. (Applicant resides in 11B immediately above 10B. No back up experienced so stack not blocked, merely 10B toilet. Full cost disputed

ALLOWED

disclosed.

based on new evidence). 97. [NAME_126] invoice 71362 £648.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 160 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 120

Please see photo of area at attachment ‘[NAME_126] 71362 Photo’

This is an area for the commercial landlord and the sum of £324 should be credited to the applicants [recharge to landlord at square]

The confusion for the PM at the time may have arisen as a number of residents park their vehicles in this car park.

Agreed. (£324 to be credited to lessees).

50% DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 98. [NAME_140] invoice MK19827 Invoice disputed in part – 50% reduction claimed in the sum of £1.416.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per para 161 of Statement of Case – sum payable £708.00 Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 121 to 123 Not agreed. (No point in carrying out second service when repairs from first service had not been carried out).

ALLOWED

£708.00.

99. [NAME_141] invoice NM6621 Invoice disputed in full.

£690.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 162 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 124 Not agreed. (Call out charge of £300 plus 5 hours labour when flat sink was not blocked is wholly unreasonable. Three claimed blockages 11G, 12C and 13D are not on same stack).

DISALLOWED 100.[NAME_126] invoice 72080 £673.92 Unreasonably incurred per para 163 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 125 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 101.[NAME_126] invoice 76215 £90.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 164 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 126

On review of the dispute raised we do believe this should have been a cost for the commercial landlord and should be credited to the applicant sum of £90 [recharge to landlord at Square] Agreed. (£90 to be credited to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 102.[NAME_126] invoice £854.40 Unreasonably incurred per para 165 Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_67].

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

72992 of Statement of Case – sum payable £683.52

[NAME_117] paragraph 127 103.[NAME_176] 102513 Invoice disputed in full.

£9.97 £76.00 No invoices produced. Unreasonably incurred per para 166 to 167 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 128 Not agreed. (3 padlocks and 4 key safes already supplied – furthermore [NAME_119] has issued its own invoice yet it is not a direct supplier).

DISALLOWED 104.[NAME_142] disputed in full.

£144.00 No invoice produced. Unreasonably incurred per para 168 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 129 to 131 Not agreed. (Work to 2 inch pipe within flat – not main stack).

50% ALLOWED 105.[NAME_162] £810.00 No invoice produced. Unreasonably incurred per para 170 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 129 to 131 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 106.Bulbs £19.90 Duplication of sum claimed on [NAME_126] invoice 71014. Unreasonably incurred per para 171 of Statement of Case See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 132

This is an accrual which is not required and can be Agreed. (£19.80 to be credited to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

– sum payable nil

released as a credit to the applicants in the sum of £19.90 107.Trunking £8.20 Duplication of sum claimed on [NAME_126] invoice 77096. Unreasonably incurred per para 172 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 133

This is an accrual which is not required and can be released as a credit to the applicants in the sum of £8.20 Agreed. (£8.20 to be credited to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 108.[NAME_126] invoice 57336 £72.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 173 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 134

Inv 57336 states that the operative attending was unable to unblock with the use of the drain rods and it is therefore unclear why the applicant believes the caretaker would have been able to unblock this. The job was reported by the caretaker for assistance.

While reviewing the invoice it was noted that only the labour cost has been charged and there are no excessive travel charges as the applicant Agreed. (£72.00 to be credited back to lessees).

DISALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

has frequently alleged will be incurred due to the location of the head office of the contractor which is 117 miles or approx. 2hours 20mins drive away. This is further evidence that the alleged increase in charges are false.

This said the contractor should not off attended on this occasion or accepted the job without the necessary equipment to unblock and it is agreed the outcome of this job should have been further scrutinised before paying.

It is therefore agreed that the applicants are due a full credit of £72 for this item 109.[NAME_126] invoice 57337 Invoice disputed in full.

£288.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 174 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 135 to 136 Not agreed. (Domestic items from flats disallowed by previous Tribunal).

DISALLOWED 110.[NAME_126] £234.00 Unreasonably Denied. See Witness Not agreed. (Also DISALLOWED

invoice 58364 Invoice disputed in full.

incurred per para 175 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 137 see item 108 above. Respondent claims chute blockage left for two more days as caretaker too busy so came in on Saturday – 4 hours overtime – could and should have been cleared in 4 hours on the previous Weds or Thurs). 111.[NAME_126] invoice 62708 Invoice disputed in full.

£504.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 176 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 138 Not agreed. (Invoice refers to domestic items).

DISALLOWED 112.[NAME_126] invoice 64167 Invoice disputed in full.

£181.20 Unreasonably incurred per para 177 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 139 Not agreed. (Respondent photo shows domestic items).

DISALLOWED 113.[NAME_126] invoice 65017 Invoice disputed in £154.37 Unreasonably incurred per para 178 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 140 Not agreed. (Respondent photo shows stacked domestic items).

DISALLOWED

full.

114.[NAME_126] invoice 68303 Invoice disputed in full.

£324.00 Unreasonably incurred per para 179 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 141 Not agreed. (Respondent photo shows stacked domestic items).

DISALLOWED 115.[NAME_143] invoice 69080 Invoice disputed in full.

£2,274.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per paras 180 and 181 of Statement of Case –sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 142 to 143 Not agreed. (Overall risk still Medium since 2017 when 2 year review recommended – 2017 works not carried out within 6 months).

ALLOWED 116.[NAME_149] invoice 19-2389 £3,048.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per paras 182 to 185 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 144 to 148 Agreed. (As it now transpires that some works were carried out).

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT 117.[NAME_150] insurance invoices 1238915, 1238916, 1366837 and entries on spreadsheet £1,149.7 8 £102.14 £1,170.2 5

and all spreadsh Unreasonably incurred per paras 186 to 190 of Statement of Case – sum payable for asset insurance £21,661.95. (Engineering insurance agreed at Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 149 Agreed.

ALLOWED BY AGREEMENT

relating to buildings insurance and Engineering Inspection eet entries £1,260.18). 118.Accountancy fee – no invoice – spreadsheet entry only Invoice now produced but remains disputed in full.

£1,800.0 0 Unreasonably incurred per paras 191 to 194 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 150 Not agreed. (The opening sum invoiced remains incorrect and therefore the claimed deficit is also incorrect).

ALLOWED 119.Management fees – no invoices – spreadsheet entries only 12 invoices now produced. Disputed element now reduced from 60% to 30% in an effort to seek agreement. Sum claimed £30,676. 08 Unreasonably incurred per paras 195 to 211 of Statement of Case – sum payable £12,270.00

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 151 Not agreed. (Tribunal previously allowed 10% reduction for late service charge accounts. 2018 accounts produced August 2020. Applicant similarly claims 10%. Tribunal previously allowed further 20% reduction for management inadequacies.

10% DISALLOWED

now reduced to £9,232.80

Applicant similarly claims 20%. Note: Applicant reduces total claim from 60% to 30%). 120.Out of Hours fees – no invoices – spreadsheet entries only 12 invoices now produced but each invoice remains disputed in full.

£549.12 Unreasonably incurred per paras 212 and 213 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 152 to 155 Not agreed. (Previously disallowed by Tribunal).

DISALLOWED 121.Banking Charges – no invoices – spreadsheet entry only Sum remains disputed in full.

£63.00 Unreasonably incurred per paras 214 and 215 of Statement of Case – sum payable nil

Denied. See Witness Statement of [NAME_116] paragraph 156 to 157 Not agreed. (Previously disallowed by Tribunal).

DISALLOWED

2018 SERVICE CHARGE -

DECISION SPREADSHEET Nominal Account Doc Date Supplier Name Transaction Header Description 1 Amount charged AMOUNT ALLOWED OR AGREED Employment Equipment Costs 01/01/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Jan18 1843224757 2.27 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/01/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Jan18 1843224757 35.20 0 Employment Equipment Costs 05/02/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Jan18 1843224757 35.21 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/03/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Feb18 1843224757 35.20 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/04/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill March18 1843224757 35.20

0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/05/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Apr18 1843224757 35.20

0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/06/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Jun18 1843224757 35.20 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/07/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Jul 2018 1843224757 35.20 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/08/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Aug 18 1843224757 35.20 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/09/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Sep18 1843224757 35.20 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/10/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Oct18 2074239347 35.21 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/11/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Nov18 1843224757 35.18 0 Employment Equipment Costs 03/12/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Dec18 1843224757 32.93

0

Employment Equipment Costs 03/12/2018 [COMPANY_145] T/Bill Dec18 1843224757 2.27 2.27 Employment Equipment Costs 31/12/2018 [COMPANY_145] 1843224757 -2.27 -2.27 Employment Equipment Costs 01/01/2018 [NAME_151] 10741 / [PHONE] 133.62 133.62 Employment Equipment Costs 30/09/2018 [NAME_151] 10741 / [PHONE] 108.06 108.06 Employment Equipment Costs 31/12/2018 [NAME_151] 10741 / [PHONE] 232.44 232.44 Employment Equipment Costs 31/12/2018 [NAME_151] 10741 / [PHONE] -232.44 -232.44 Employment Equipment Costs 31/03/2018 [NAME_151] 10741/[PHONE] 125.26 125.26 Employment Equipment Costs 30/06/2018 [NAME_151] 10741/[PHONE] 125.41

125.41 Employment Equipment Costs Total

914.75 492.35 Communal Cleaning 01/02/2018 [COMPANY_167] 29/1/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 22/02/2018 [COMPANY_167] on walls 20/2/18 90.00 0 Communal Cleaning 01/03/2018 [COMPANY_167] 28/2/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 29/03/2018 [COMPANY_167] 29/3/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 03/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] 30/4/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 31/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] 29/5/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 28/06/2018 [COMPANY_167] 28/6/2018 3,146.45

3,146.45

Communal Cleaning 02/08/2018 [COMPANY_167] 30/7/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 30/08/2018 [COMPANY_167] 29/8/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 04/10/2018 [COMPANY_167] 28/9/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 01/11/2018 [COMPANY_167] 26/10/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 29/11/2018 [COMPANY_167] 28/11/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning 31/12/2018 [COMPANY_167] 28/12/2018 3,146.45 3,146.45 Communal Cleaning Total

37,847.40 37,757.40 Lift Maintenance 01/01/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Maint 23/11/17-23/02/18 555.67 555.67 Lift Maintenance 01/01/2018 lift insurance report 08/02/20 -250.00 -250.00 Lift Maintenance 01/01/2018

Lift panels missing screws -250.00

-250.00 Lift Maintenance 22/01/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 14/01/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 22/01/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 13/01/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 25/01/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 16/01/18 1,368.00 1,368.00 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 30/1/18 776.40 776.40 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 15/1/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 11/1/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 21/1/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 15/1/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 23/1/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 22/01/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 06/02/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 16/1/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 21/02/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 18/02/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 28/02/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 24/02/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 28/02/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 26/02/18 156.00

156.00 Lift Maintenance 06/03/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lifts 01/03/18 156.00 156.00

Lift Maintenance 26/03/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 4/3/2018 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 29/03/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Maint 23/02/18 - 23/05/18 957.00 957.00 Lift Maintenance 10/04/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Callout 29/3/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 10/04/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Call Out 7/4/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 18/04/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 6/4/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 08/05/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 4/5/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 30/05/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 24/04/2018 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 08/06/2018 [COMPANY_152] of Instalation 29/05/18 1,296.00 0.00 Lift Maintenance 11/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Working 28/4/2018 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 11/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Stuck 29/4/2018 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 11/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Car Door 19/04/2018 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 11/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Stuck 20/5/2018 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Call Out 20/4/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Ligt Repair 06/5/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 4/5/18 156.00

156.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 30/4/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 11/5/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 30/5/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 18/4/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 12/06/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 8/5/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 02/07/2018 [NAME_128] Service June 2018 987.00 987.00 Lift Maintenance 02/07/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Door Repair 18/6/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 02/07/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 1/6/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 11/07/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 6/7/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 11/07/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 29/5/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 11/07/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 02/6/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 02/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 11/7/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 02/08/2018 [NAME_128] OOH Lift repair 20/07/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 06/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 24/7/18 222.00

222.00 Lift Maintenance 08/08/2018 [NAME_128] Repair Lift 24/06/18 204.00 204.00

Lift Maintenance 08/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Call Out 30/6/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 08/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repair 23/6/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 08/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift OOH 24/6/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 08/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 27/7/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 08/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Call Out 28/7/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 08/08/2018 [NAME_128] Lift Repairs 1/7/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 04/09/2018 [NAME_128] Repair doors 05/03-21/03/18 2,025.60 2,025.60 Lift Maintenance 04/09/2018 [NAME_128] Lift repair 22/08/18 4,227.60 4,227.60 Lift Maintenance 27/09/2018 [NAME_128] Service Charge23/8/18-23/11/18 987.00 987.00 Lift Maintenance 08/10/2018 [NAME_128] Lift repair 25/09-26/09/18 1,782.00 1,782.00 Lift Maintenance 22/11/2018 [NAME_128] Lift callout 05/11/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 26/11/2018 [COMPANY_168] entry 23/11/18 261.60 261.60 Lift Maintenance 27/11/2018 [NAME_128] Lift callout 18/11/18 816.00 816.00 Lift Maintenance 27/11/2018 [NAME_128] Callout 15/10/18 210.00

210.00 Lift Maintenance 27/11/2018 [NAME_128] Lift repair 25/11/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 27/11/2018 [NAME_128] Lift repair 19/11/18 558.00 558.00 Lift Maintenance 27/11/2018 [NAME_128] Lift works 27-29/10/18 4,227.60 0 Lift Maintenance 28/11/2018 [NAME_128] Callout fee 18/11/18 156.00 156.00 Lift Maintenance 10/12/2018 [NAME_128] Lift repair 14/10/18 204.00 204.00 Lift Maintenance 11/12/2018 [NAME_128] Lift callout 04/12/18 438.00 438.00 Lift Maintenance 11/12/2018 [NAME_128] Lift callout 22/11/18 1,536.00 1,536.00 Lift Maintenance 20/12/2018 [NAME_128] Lift repair 13/12/18 900.00 900.00 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 [NAME_128] Lift maint 23/11/18-23/02/19 413.90 413.90 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 Lift service 17/11/18 1,020.00 1,020.00 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 Lift repair 12/12/18 408.00 408.00 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 Lift Works 24/12/18 408.00 408.00 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 Lift 1 Extensive Works 4,020.00 0 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018

O/O/H - Lift Stuck on Ground F 204.00

0 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 Lift stuck and doors off runne 156.00 0

Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 Assessment to determine damage 312.00 0 Lift Maintenance 31/12/2018 [NAME_1] - lift stoppe 408.00 0 Lift Maintenance Total

40,065.37 29,441.77 Equipment Telephone Line 31/01/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144] / [PHONE] / 641 36.40 36.40 Equipment Telephone Line 01/05/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144] / [PHONE]/641 36.46 36.46 Equipment Telephone Line 01/11/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144] / [PHONE]/641 37.50 37.50 Equipment Telephone Line 31/12/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144] / PHONE 37.78 37.78 Equipment Telephone Line 01/09/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144] / PHONES 46.46 46.46 Equipment Telephone Line 01/10/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144] / PHONES 36.90 36.90 Equipment Telephone Line 01/12/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144] / PHONES 37.63 37.63 Equipment Telephone Line 01/06/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144]/[PHONE]/641 35.86 35.86 Equipment Telephone Line 01/08/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144]/[PHONE]/641 37.04 37.04 Equipment Telephone Line 01/04/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144]/[PHONE]/641 35.78 35.78 Equipment Telephone Line 01/07/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144]/[PHONE]/641 37.19

37.19 Equipment Telephone Line 01/03/2018 [COMPANY_153] [NAME_144]/1843297206/641 36.17 36.17 Equipment Telephone Line Total

451.17 451.17 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 01/01/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Emerg Lighting 8/8/17-7/8/17 1,925.16 1,925.16 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 15/02/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Repair Lights 19/01/18 258.00 258.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 24/05/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Faulty fire alarm 22/5/18 114.00 114.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 31/05/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Faulty fire alarm 9/4/18 114.00 114.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 20/07/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Fire Alarm 15/05/18 210.00 210.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 07/08/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Fire Maint 8/8/18-7/8/19 1,283.43

1,283.43

Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 07/08/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Fire Maint 8/8/18-7/8/19 1,925.16 1,925.16 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 31/12/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Fire Maint 8/8/18-7/8/19 -1,925.16 -1,925.16 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 26/09/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Fire Alarm System 21/07/2018 174.00 174.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 28/09/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Serv fire extinguishers11/9/18 103.20 103.20 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 30/10/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Dry riser works 18/10/18 405.42 405.42 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 31/10/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Investigation works 3/8/18 258.00 0 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 31/10/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Issues with fire alarm 20/7/18 186.00 186.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 31/10/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Fire faults 3/8/18 840.00

840.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 30/11/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Faulty fire alarm 27/11/18 126.00 126.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance 31/12/2018 [NAME_131] And Security Ltd Faulty fire alarm 13/12/18 126.00 126.00 Fire/Emergency Lighting Maintenance Total

6,123.21 5,865.21 Door Entry System Maintenance 01/01/2018 S/C Period Transaction -250.00 -250.00 Door Entry System Maintenance 01/01/2018 S/C Period Transaction -250.00 -250.00 Door Entry System Maintenance 01/01/2018 S/C Period Transaction -125.17 -125.17 Door Entry System Maintenance 05/01/2018 [COMPANY_168]-Dec18 6,076.94 6,076.94 Door Entry System Maintenance 23/07/2018 [COMPANY_168] Out 20/7/18 249.60

0

Door Entry System Maintenance 20/09/2018 [COMPANY_168] entry repair 19/09/18 261.60 261.60 Door Entry System Maintenance 27/09/2018 [COMPANY_168] entry repair 24/09/18 261.60 0 Door Entry System Maintenance 24/12/2018 [COMPANY_168] repair 21/12/18 261.60 0 Door Entry System Maintenance 31/12/2018 Intercom callout 17/12/18 261.60 0 Door Entry System Maintenance 31/12/2018 Fobs supplied 18/12/18 392.40 0 Door Entry System Maintenance Total

7,140.17 5,713.37 CCTV System Maintenance 18/01/2018 [COMPANY_154] 11/01/18 236.59 236.59 CCTV System Maintenance 22/08/2018 [COMPANY_154] 08/08/2018 236.59 236.59 CCTV System Maintenance Total

473.18 473.18 Pump Maintenance 01/01/2018 Direct Pump Services Ltd Pump Maint 25/5/17 - 24/5/18 397.68

397.68 Pump Maintenance 01/01/2018 Dry riser works -697.92 -697.92 Pump Maintenance 01/01/2018 Tank Chlorination 11.09.2017 -250.00 -250.00 Pump Maintenance 31/01/2018 Direct Pump Services Ltd Clean Water Tank 30-31/01/18 1,663.20 1,663.20 Pump Maintenance 30/05/2018 Direct Pump Services Ltd Pump Maint 25/5/18 - 24/5/19 741.11

741.11 Pump Maintenance 30/05/2018 Direct Pump Services Ltd Pump Maint 25/5/18 - 24/5/19 482.89

482.89 Pump Maintenance 31/12/2018 Direct Pump Services Ltd Pump Maint 25/5/18 - 24/5/19 -482.89 -482.89 Pump Maintenance Total

1,854.07 1,854.07 Lightning Protection Maintenance 30/03/2018 [COMPANY_156] 28/3/18 4,130.40 4,130.40 Lightning Protection Maintenance 22/06/2018 [COMPANY_156] 20/06/18 234.00 234.00 Lightning Protection Maintenance 31/12/2018 Contribution Arlington Sq 18 -28.08 -28.08 Lightning Protection Maintenance 31/12/2018

Light Protec Repairs 28/3/17 -495.65

-495.65

Lightning Protection Maintenance Total

3,840.67 3,840.67 Pest Control 01/01/2018 [COMPANY_170] Nov17-Jan18 79.45 79.45 Pest Control 01/02/2018 [COMPANY_170]-Apr 18 235.80 60.18 Pest Control 01/05/2018 [COMPANY_170] control May18-Jul18 247.50 247.50 Pest Control 27/07/2018 [COMPANY_170] treatment Jun-Jul18 1,026.00 1,026.00 Pest Control 01/08/2018 [COMPANY_170] Aug18-Oct18 247.50 247.50 Pest Control 01/11/2018 [COMPANY_170] Nov18-Jan19 243.50 243.50 Pest Control 01/11/2018 [COMPANY_170] Nov18-Jan19 4.00 4.00 Pest Control 31/12/2018 [COMPANY_170] Nov18-Jan19 -4.00

-4.00 Pest Control 31/12/2018 Coackroaches - 6th Floor 1,026.00 0 Pest Control 31/12/2018 Pest Control Feb-Apr 18 contr by square -117.90 -117.90 Pest Control 31/12/2018 Pest control May18-Jul18 contr by square -123.75 -123.75 Pest Control 31/12/2018 Pest Control Aug18-Oct18 contr by square -123.75 -123.75 Pest Control 31/12/2018 Pest Control Nov18-Jan19 contr by square -121.75 -121.75 Pest Control 31/12/2018 Pest Control Nov17-Jan18 contr by square -39.73 -39.73 Pest Control Total

2,578.87 1,377.25 Electricity Charges 06/02/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 1,856.06

1,856.06

Electricity Charges 06/03/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 1,692.30 1,692.30 Electricity Charges 06/04/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 1,850.41 1,850.41 Electricity Charges 04/05/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215/P13C01872 / A 1,799.38 1,799.38 Electricity Charges 06/06/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 1,843.11 1,843.11 Electricity Charges 05/07/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 1,791.48 1,791.48 Electricity Charges 06/08/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 1,845.82 1,845.82 Electricity Charges 06/09/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 1,846.30 1,846.30 Electricity Charges 04/10/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 2,046.93

2,046.93 Electricity Charges 06/11/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 2,116.27 2,116.27 Electricity Charges 06/12/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 2,050.15 2,050.15 Electricity Charges 31/12/2018 [NAME_169] 471713215 / P13C01872 / A 2,105.20 2,105.20 Electricity Charges 31/12/2018 Elec contrib by Square 2018 -1,950.00 -1,950.00 Electricity Charges Total

20,893.41 20,893.41 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 Lights in block -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 Red booster set -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 Smashed window in entrance to -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018

Trace and access -250.00

-250.00

[NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 source of blockage -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 Electrical fault to the wiring -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 To repair broken light outside -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 Lights out in [NAME_1] -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 [NAME_1] soil stack -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 [NAME_1] in bat -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/01/2018 [NAME_1] runn -250.00 -250.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 25/01/2018 [COMPANY_167] glass MED 10/1/18 195.14

195.14 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 26/01/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd Land Reg 7.47 7.47 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 26/01/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd Land Reg 1.53 1.53 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/02/2018 [COMPANY_167] panel MED 31/1/18 150.70 150.70 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 22/02/2018 [COMPANY_167] light repairs 3/2/18 311.04 311.04 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/03/2018 [COMPANY_167] light 26/2/18 104.83 104.83 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/03/2018 [COMPANY_167] Board up smashed glas 16/2/18 133.60 133.60 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 22/03/2018 [COMPANY_167] hole and repair 19/3/18 100.92 100.92 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 12/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] 19/03/18 90.00

0

[NAME_135] & Maintenance 12/04/2018 Target Maintenance GB Ltd TA [NAME_137] 8/4/18 150.00 150.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 19/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] leak in apartment 3/1/18 90.00 90.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Trace leak in apartment 3/1/18 -90.00 -90.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 19/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] bulky items 16/4/18 126.60 78.19 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Remove bulky items 16/4/18 contr by square -15.19 -15.19 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 19/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] office window 19/4/18 373.97 373.97 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 26/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] graffiti 19/3/18 107.16 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 03/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] on binstore 24/4/18 74.14

74.14 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 04/05/2018 [COMPANY_158] 02/05/18 432.00 432.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 10/05/2018 Target Maintenance GB Ltd TA [NAME_137] 27/4/18 210.00 210.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 13/05/2018 [COMPANY_177] 5/5/18 252.00 252.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 16/05/2018 [COMPANY_158] 08/05/18 198.00 198.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Pipe Leak 08/05/18 -198.00 -198.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 17/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] tidy 16/4/18 264.00 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 17/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] Four safe keys 14/5/18 218.40 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 17/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] repaired 9/5/18 345.60

0

[NAME_135] & Maintenance 17/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] change 15/5/18 149.76 149.76 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 24/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] binstore rooms 18/5/18 295.20 295.20 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 08/06/2018 [COMPANY_158] 3/3/18 336.00 336.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 14/06/2018 [COMPANY_158]/Leak Damage 31/05/18 168.00 84 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 28/06/2018 [COMPANY_167] door 22/6/18 347.76 347.76 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Replace door 22/6/18 -347.76 -347.76 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 28/06/2018 [COMPANY_167] glass window 24/5/18 220.08 220.08 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 12/07/2018 [COMPANY_167] light fittings 19/6/18 3,621.89

3,621.89 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 19/07/2018 [COMPANY_167] drain 16/7/18 168.00 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 27/07/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd Land Reg 12.00 12.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 27/07/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd Land Reg 15.00 15.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 23/08/2018 [COMPANY_167] suppliers 22/8/18 46.39 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Caretaking suppliers 22/8/18 contr by square -5.57 -5.57 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/08/2018 [COMPANY_170] control 28/8/18 162.00 162.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 05/09/2018 [COMPANY_158] 06/08/18 336.00 336.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 05/09/2018 [COMPANY_158] 08/08/18 336.00

0

[NAME_135] & Maintenance 13/09/2018 [COMPANY_158] 10/08/18 1,074.00 1,074.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 27/09/2018 [COMPANY_158] 18/09/18 636.00 636.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Soil Stack Leak 18/09/18 -636.00 -636.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/10/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd Padlock for TC1031 9.97 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 01/10/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd Padlock for TC1031 76.00 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 11/10/2018 [COMPANY_167] 9/10/18 295.82 295.82 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 15/10/2018 Payment Request PRF GEN- Unblock drain 144.00 72 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 19/10/2018 Payment Request PRF GEN Repair Leak 135.00

135.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 08/11/2018 [COMPANY_167] change 31/10/18 19.90 19.90 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 15/11/2018 [COMPANY_167] fence 26/10/18 648.00 324 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Repair fence 26/10/18 contr by Square -324.00 -324.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 20/11/2018 [COMPANY_161] kitchen sinks Nov18 432.00 432.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Unblock kitchen sinks Nov18 -432.00 -432.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 06/12/2018 [COMPANY_167] repairs 29/11/18 90.00 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 07/12/2018 [COMPANY_161] sink Dec18 108.00 108.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018

Unblock sink Dec18 -108.00

-108.00

[NAME_135] & Maintenance 13/12/2018 [COMPANY_167] lighting 11/12/18 854.40 854.40 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 13/12/2018 [COMPANY_167] 30/11/18 34.46 34.46 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 20/12/2018 [COMPANY_167] change 12/12/18 31.80 31.80 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 18/05/2018 Sundry Income -560.00 -560.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 27/04/2018 Payment [NAME_162] 810.00 810.00 16/05/2018 [COMPANY_171] Service Refuse Chute 10/05/18 1,416.00 1,416.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 17/05/2018 [COMPANY_167] 3/5/2018 673.92 673.92 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 19/11/2018 [COMPANY_171] Service Bin Chute 14/11/18 1,416.00

1,416.00 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 29/11/2018 [COMPANY_167] 28/11/2018 673.92 673.92 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Checked Waste Pipe 15/11/18 690.00 0 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Bulb change 20/12/18 9.95 9.95 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Trunking 15/11/18 8.20 8.20 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Bulbs 31.10.2018 19.90 19.90 [NAME_135] & Maintenance 31/12/2018 Truncking 8.20 8.20 [NAME_135] & Maintenance Total

15,000.10 12,030.17 Reactive Refuse Removal 05/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] 4/4/18 72.00

72.00

Reactive Refuse Removal 05/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] 4/4/18 288.00 0.00 Reactive Refuse Removal 19/04/2018 [COMPANY_167] bin chutes 7/4/18 234.00 0.00 Reactive Refuse Removal 28/06/2018 [COMPANY_167] bulk items 20/6/18 504.00 0.00 Reactive Refuse Removal 19/07/2018 [COMPANY_167] waste removed 16/7/18 181.20 0.00 Reactive Refuse Removal 02/08/2018 [COMPANY_167] items 30/7/18 154.37 0.00 Reactive Refuse Removal 27/09/2018 [COMPANY_167] 20/09/2018 324.00 0 Reactive Refuse Removal Total

1,757.57 72.00 Buildings Insurance 01/01/2018 (INS) [COMPANY_173] (22118) Asset 2016842/1215941 12,684.67

12,684.67 Buildings Insurance 10/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Asset 2016842/1215941 8,477.32 8,477.32 Buildings Insurance 10/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Asset 2016842/1215941 11,746.35 11,746.35 Buildings Insurance 10/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Asset 2016842/1215941 1,043.36 1,043.36 Buildings Insurance 10/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Asset 2016842/1215941 1,445.71 1,445.71 Buildings Insurance 31/12/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Asset 2016842/1215941 -11,746.35 -11,746.35 Buildings Insurance 31/12/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Terrorism 2016842/1215941 -1,445.71 -1,445.71 Buildings Insurance Total

22,205.35 22,205.35 Insurance Valuation 31/12/2018 Accrs Ins Val 2018 700.00 700.00 Insurance Valuation Total

700.00

700.00 Fire Risk Assessment 13/07/2018 [COMPANY_165] 3/7/18 2,274.00 2,274.00

Fire Risk Assessment Total

2,274.00 2,274.00 Health & Safety Assessment 31/12/2018 Safety Survey20+21/8/18+3/1/19 3,048.00 3,048.00 Health & Safety Assessment 31/12/[ADDRESS] to Safety survey -365.76 -365.76 Health & Safety Assessment Total

2,682.24 2,682.24 Engineering Inspection Costs 01/01/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Insp 1950550/1087679 667.82 667.82 Engineering Inspection Costs 30/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Insp 2019672/1224657 490.55 490.55 Engineering Inspection Costs 30/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Insp 2019672/1224657 679.70 679.70 Engineering Inspection Costs 31/12/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Insp 2019672/1224657 -679.70 -679.70 Engineering Inspection Costs 01/01/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Ins 1950550/1087679 59.33

59.33 Engineering Inspection Costs 30/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Insp 2019672/1224657 42.48 42.48 Engineering Inspection Costs 30/07/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Insp 2019672/1224657 58.87 58.87 Engineering Inspection Costs 31/12/2018 (INS) [NAME_164] (22118) Eng Ins 2019672/1224657 -58.87 -58.87 Engineering Inspection Costs Total

1,260.18 1,260.18 Other Surveying Costs 27/07/2018 [COMPANY_165] Re-Inspection 10/7/18 1,134.00 1,134.00 Other Surveying Costs Total

1,134.00 1,134.00 Accountancy Fee 31/12/2018 Accountancy fee 2018 1,800.00 1,800.00 Accountancy Fee Total

1,800.00 1,800.00 Management Fee 31/01/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34

2300.7

Management Fee 01/02/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 01/03/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 01/04/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 01/05/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 20/06/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 31/07/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 01/08/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 18/09/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34

2300.7 Management Fee 17/10/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 28/11/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee 20/12/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Management Fee 2,556.34 2300.7 Management Fee Total

30,676.08 27608.4 Out Of Hours Fee 31/01/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 01/02/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 01/03/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 01/04/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76

0

Out Of Hours Fee 01/05/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 20/06/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 31/07/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 01/08/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 18/09/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 17/10/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 28/11/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76 0 Out Of Hours Fee 20/12/2018 [NAME_118]) Property Management Ltd. Out of Hours Fee 45.76

0 Out Of Hours Fee Total

549.12 0 Banking Charges 31/12/2018 Accr Bank charges 63.00 0 Banking Charges Total

63.00 0 Grand Total 202,283.91 179,926.19