First-tier Tribunal Rules on Reasonable Service Charges

OUTCOME: Allowed

Case Reference : LON/00BG/LSC/2021/0266

[NAME] : [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Tribunal Members : Tribunal Judge [NAME] MA [NAME] of Hearing : 20 June 2022

Date of Decision : 15 July 2022

_______________________________________________

DECISION

____________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2022

DECISION

1. The Tribunal records on the attached Scott Schedule its findings in respect of the various matters in dispute. The decision below sets out our reasons for making those findings.

2. The Tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) considering it just and equitable so to do.

3. The Tribunal orders the Respondents to repay to the Applicant the Tribunal fees of £300 within 28 days.

[APPELLANT]

1. An application was made by [APPELLANT] of 98 [NAME], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] ([NAME]) on 1st August 2021. It is not clear whether Ms [APPELLANT] intended to include other leaseholders, but none were joined. The application sought to challenge service charge years 2019 to 2021 said to have a total value in dispute of £8,792.69 plus. In the application [RESPONDENT] are named as the Respondents, they being the landlord and housing association for [NAME]. At item 9 of the application Ms [APPELLANT] has listed some nine leaseholders that she wished to have the benefit of any findings under section 20C. A further name was added subsequently and that is [NAME].

2. This case has had a somewhat tortuous history. There have been a number of directions issued, the latest being on 17th March 2022, which is the date the matter should have come before the Tribunal for hearing. Unfortunately, the matter could not be dealt with due to the state of the paperwork and the hearing was converted to a case management hearing where further directions were issued leading to the matter being dealt with at a face to face hearing on 20th June 2022.

3. Prior to the hearing we had been provided with a bundle of papers prepared by the Respondent [RESPONDENT]. This contained an extract from the specimen lease, the application under section 27A of the Act, a completed Scott Schedule, directions and statements from Mr [APPELLANT] for the Applicant and Mr [APPELLANT] for the Respondent. There was also a summary by the Applicant and a substantial bundle of invoices running to some 178 pages or thereabouts. The Applicant was not content with the bundle produced by the Respondent and therefore produced, her own which ran to some 40 pages. There was a good deal of duplication. The copy application was included, as was the relevant section of the flat lease notwithstanding the fact that directions require a copy of the lease to be provided, copies of some service charge demands, emails and some invoices and comparison invoices. There is also an admission that [RESPONDENT] had not carried out the consultation procedures in connection with the lift works.

4. Of the witness statements, Mr [NAME] made a short statement concerning the attendance of an operative at the flat of Mr [NAME], which we noted. The other witness statement was made by Mr [NAME], Service Charge Officer who works for Poplar Housing. This witness statement told us of his employment and dealt with the issues that were set out in the Scott Schedule. The Scott Schedule had been colour coded and he explained what those colours meant. With regard to complaints in relation to the stack pipe, it was confirmed that the ones in dispute for the relevant years were coloured green and that the cost to the individual leaseholder had been £24.98 in the year 2019/20 and £42.84 in the year 2020/21. In his statement he said that the works inevitably related to a blockage in the communal stack and that the Respondent was obliged under the lease to clear that and that the costs could be recovered through the service charges. [NAME] it was said by the Respondent, having colour coded these in orange on the Scott Schedule, that they relate to the policy excess and that these were recoverable. The policy excess is described as £50 per flat of which there are 99 therefore the policy excess is in effect £5,000. The amounts that had been charged to the leaseholders for these items were £8.61 in the year 2019 to 2020 and £24.53 in the following year. There was a further acceptance that some monies had to be refunded and those had been highlighted in red on the Scott Schedule. There were also suggestions that some invoices were missing although that was not accepted. Under the heading Alternate Quotes/Challenges he set out what appeared to be notes from the system relating to these items. He then dealt with the management fees. On the question of management fees he told us that the maintenance administration charge is based on the cost of repairs and that the Respondent adds a 30% mark up to those maintenance repairs. In respect of the overall management fee, which was calculated on the costs to the Respondent it is said that this has decreased over the two years.

5. Ms [APPELLANT] had helpfully produced a document headed ‘Case’, the contents of which we have noted. In this document Ms [APPELLANT] confirmed that certain matters no longer remained in issued and we have marked those on the Scott Schedule, which is attached to this decision. We propose to deal with the various items in the Scott Schedule in the order in which they appeared. This made it easier to follow and also meant that [COUNSEL] was able to make short submissions after each section.

6. Before the hearing got underway, [NAME] was able to produce four of the missing invoices, which are referred to in the Scott Schedule. One was in fact included. The Respondent was unable to explain why these invoices had not been provided before. One of them appeared to be [NAME] invoice from [NAME] who dealt with the works to the communal stack. There was also an invoice from [NAME] in the sum of £2,431.17 and [NAME] in respect of the replacement doors to the room housing the water pumps in the sum of £1,018. The other invoices appeared to relate to the constant problem with the fire alarm, which appeared to be on a regular basis.

7. We will deal firstly with the invoices relating to the stack pipe. We asked Mr [NAME] whether he was able to tell us how many stack pipes there were, but he could not do so. He told us that he had not been to [NAME] since [APPELLANT]. He said that the position was that a tenant or leaseholder would call them saying they had “a back surge.” A job was then [NAME] for a contractor to attend site and there are in the bundle of invoices a number from [COMPANY] who appear to be [NAME]. We were told they had a qualifying long term agreement with the Respondent, which was not challenged. These invoices cover a long period and appear to result in a standard charge of £106.52 plus VAT for call out and then there can be extra charges for emergency after 6.00pm and vehicles and crew onsite. The codes that appear in the invoices are 001 and 022 and by and large they contain the words “clear blockages to drains, stacks, sinks etc.” Some invoices are individual to [NAME], others are collectives referring to several addresses to which the contractor attends.

8. Mr [APPELLANT] told us that when they have a report from a tenant or leaseholder a job is [NAME] with the contractor to attend site. Initially they would go to [NAME] and if it were internal, it would be charged to the tenant but if it were because the stack was blocked then it would go into the service charge costs. Mr [NAME] told us that they had reviewed the Scott Schedule and had made amendments, which were highlighted in red. He was not aware that the works were inspected and checked by the Respondent.

9. Mr [RESPONDENT] told us that he managed the accounts and queries in the Home Ownership team and had been doing so for some six years. He did not consider that the number of call outs to the block, of which there had been, it appears, 47 over two years for the 99 properties was an excessive call out rate. He received no feedback from [NAME] to say what was wrong and could only rely on the code shown on the invoices. He told us that there was a limited review of invoices by [RESPONDENT]. The costs were from a standard schedule of rates under the long term agreement and the review process was that where the cost was below £1,000 then 10% might be reviewed. If the costs were over £1,000 then 50% would be reviewed and anything over £5,000 would be checked.

10. Asked to explain the administration charge of 30% added to the repairs he said that this was a charge for the running of the business and the overall costs of providing the service. This is shown as maintenance and administration on the service charge certificates. We were able to review this by reference to service charge certificates for Mr [NAME] for the years ending March 2020 and 2021. The maintenance administration charge, which is the mark-up on the repair costs, showed that in that year in question this was £503.11. In contrast the [NAME] costs were £247.52 and were the subject of a separate challenge by the Ms [APPELLANT]. In the following year, the [NAME] charge had dropped to £181.26 and the maintenance and administration charge, that is to say the 30% uplift, was shown as £408. The management and maintenance costs are in effect the management charges and were based on the office costs of running the business. The fees for this element are divided between the total number of [RESPONDENT] leaseholders who pay a management fee. Asked about the charges that the Respondent would make for major works, he told us that these were at 8%.

11. Mr [RESPONDENT] for the Respondent drew our attention to the lease extract, which in his submission at clause 4(j)(i) enabled the Respondent to manage the building and to discharge all proper fees salaries charges and expenses payable to such agents or such other person who may be managing the building, including the costs of computing and collecting the rents in respect of the building or parts thereof. In addition under the 5th schedule paragraph 1(c) there is the ability to recover “a sum equal to the lessor’s reasonable costs and charges in effecting the administration and management of the building and of the common parts.” We will return to these management charges in due course.

12. Mr [NAME] took us back to the terms of the lease in respect of the works to the drainage system and at extract at page 2, 5(a)(ii) was the obligation on the part of the Respondent to maintain waste water and sewerage ducts enjoyed or to be used by the lessee in common with others. He submitted that the number of call outs for the years in question as had been explained by Mr [NAME] were such that we should accept that matters had been properly recorded and that the costs were due.

13. On the case produced by the Ms [APPELLANT] the question of the [NAME] was [NAME]. There seemed to have been confusion as Ms [APPELLANT] appeared to believe that the policy excess was only £50 for the block. However, that was not the case. Mr [NAME] statement said this was £50 per flat giving a policy excess of £5,000 which Ms [APPELLANT] accepted was unchallenged and that it would not be reasonable therefore for there to have been claims on the insurance for amounts that were under dispute.

Accordingly, this element of the claim fell away.

14. The next items that we visited related to problems with the water pressure and water pumps at the building. The general complaint was that the water pressure was still poor, and that works carried out had not been done satisfactorily.

15. Mr [NAME] told us that he had called out Thames Water who said that they were providing the necessary water pressure to site and that if that was not sufficient to reach the flats it was the responsibility of the Respondent. Mr [APPELLANT] said he had no record of any queries being [NAME] by tenants and was not aware of the problem. He did accept that he had received the Scott Schedule at the end of last year and this had not been investigated by them. Mr [NAME] and Mr [NAME] both said they had water pressure issues but only Mr [NAME] had made a complaint and that was by telephone. It appears that there was an intermittent problem and that works that had been carried out did not seem to have solved the problem. Mr [NAME] confirmed that he would cause investigations to be undertaken.

16. [NAME]’s submission was that there was no evidence before us that the block suffered from water pressure issues, and we were told that apparently there was a water tank on each floor.

17. The next issue related to the fire alarm panels. The allegation was that there had been constant beeping problems and that there had been unnecessary attendances. It did appear that on at least two occasions contractors had been called out to carry out works only to be told that other contractors were on site, which affected their ability to undertake the work said to be required. Mr [NAME] accepted that two of the call outs were perhaps inappropriate. On the Scott Schedule there are a number of entries where invoices were awaited but had not been produced and those costs have been conceded as not being recoverable.

18. Continuing with the Scott Schedule there are a number of challenges made to items numbered 111 through to 131. These are all relating to major works carried out at [NAME] for which the Respondent conceded that at Nos 121 to 129 on the Scott Schedule were one job and therefore were subject to the consultation maximum of £250. It was conceded that this was the case and that refunds were due and indeed as in some cases being made. However, it was Ms [APPELLANT]’s case that all these invoices shown from 111 to 132 were relating to the same work and therefore should have been the subject of the consultation process and the limit. There are a number of invoices, which we have considered.

19. Mr [NAME] told us that there was one fire risk assessment carried out and that one contractor had undertaken the works. In support of the charges being dealt with as they have been by the Respondent Mr [RESPONDENT] produced the Court of Appeal case of [NAME] v [NAME] & [NAME] [2014]EWCACiv1395. We have noted that and will refer to that in our decision. No contract was provided with the contractor who were [COMPANY].

20. The next matter that we had to consider was the management charges. In fact Ms [APPELLANT] made no challenge to the [NAME] charges considering those to be reasonable but did challenge the repair uplift of 30% for which there was not a compelling response from Mr [NAME].

FINDINGS

21. The Scott Schedule must be read in conjunction with our decision. A number of refunds have been accepted and we have shown those on the Scott Schedule.

22. With regard to the works to the “stack” Mr [NAME] was not able to add anything to the works undertaken. He said this was down to the contractors to decide what code was used and whether or not they became the costs of the leaseholder or had to be absorbed by the Respondent. There seemed to be no attempt to check these invoices and, in our findings, some 47 call outs seems excessive particularly as he does not even know how many stacks there are. The description of the works set out on the Scott Schedule are not of help and do not give details of the flat number. They refer for example at number 19 to back surge in kitchen sink and thereafter a blocked WC. What we find surprising is that there has been some 47 call outs without any attempt to investigate these matters in any detail. If it were the stack pipes that are indeed blocked as appears to be the suggestion from the Respondent, then it would seem to us that this would involve more than one flat at any one time. The narrative set out in the Scott Schedule does not really help us. On the face of it, it would appear, that these are blockages relating to individual flats and should therefore have been the responsibility of the leaseholder or the tenant of [RESPONDENT].

23. The standard response given in the Scott Schedule to these items is as follows: “The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However, the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors.” We find this very surprising. We are not convinced that the Respondent are recording these matters appropriately. We suspect it may be too easy to include them as matters for which service charge payments would be due rather than to seek to recover the costs from individual leaseholders. There will inevitably, we suspect, be blockages to tenanted properties which would not form part of the service charge assuming as we do that the demise certainly for the leaseholders places the onus on them to repair the drains and pipes that are within the curtilage of their flats. That being said the costs to the individual leaseholders as suggested by Mr [NAME] are not high.

24.

Accordingly, doing the best we can it seems to us that these costs are, using a broad brush approach, unreasonable and we propose to reduce them by half. We are not helped in our decision making by Mr [NAME] lack of knowledge of the building. We understand the total costs were £6,490.35 plus the costs on invoice No 45 which was produced at the hearing, which was £476.34. This gives a figure of £6,966.69, which we would halve to a rounded figure of £3,500.

25. As we have indicated above, the concerns in respect of the insurance excess fell away.

26. With regard to the water pressure, the problem we have in this case is that there appears to have been no real complaint made by the leaseholders as to the problems that they say they have had to suffer. Some quite substantial works have been undertaken as evidenced by the replacement of the pumps at a price of £11,280 and subsequent works. However, in the absence of any specific complaint [NAME] by Ms [APPELLANT] we are not able to make any findings, which would result in these costs being reduced.

27. In relation to the fire alarm works there are costs associated with attendances, which seemed to have been duplicated. These are evidenced by the invoices from [COMPANY] at pages 158 to 160 in the bundle of invoices. At invoices numbered 159 and 160 there is a clear narrative indicating that they had attended but maintenance was ongoing on the system and they were not able to undertake any works. For invoice at page 159 that was the sum of £125.35 which we disallow and the same amount is claimed in respect of a later attendance which was aborted for the same reasons again in the sum of £125.35 at page 160 of the invoices. These two items are disallowed. The other item of expenditure by [NAME] that we do not consider should be paid by Ms [APPELLANT] is the invoice at page 163 of the bundle, which appears to relate to a hairdresser and lobby, although we understand the hairdresser is no longer in existence. The charge for that was £201.26 and this we consider should not allowed.

28. The next matter we turn to is the question of the fire prevention works. We are grateful to Mr [NAME] for producing a copy of the Court of Appeal case of [NAME] and drawing out attention to paragraph 36 of the judgement. This says as follows: “It is not in issue that the question of what a single set of qualifying works comprises is one of fact. It is a multi-factorial question the answer to which should be determined in a common sense way taking into account all relevant circumstances. Relevant factors are likely to include (i) where the items of work are to be carried (whether they are contiguous to or physically far removed from each other); (ii) whether they are the subject of the same contract; (iii) whether they are to be done at more or less the same time or at different times; and (iv) whether the items of work are different in character from, or have no connection with, each other. I emphasise that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of factors, which are likely to be relevant. Ultimately it will be a question of fact and degree.” These are the words of Lord [NAME] MR.

29. It seems clear to us that the works which are set out in the Scott Schedule at items 111 through to 131 arise from the works to fire prevention carried out at [NAME]. The Respondent conceded that items 121 to 129 were linked but it seems to us from considering the description of the works included in the Scott Schedule and such other documentary evidence as was available to us, that these are all one set of works. Looking at a number of the invoices from [COMPANY] dated August 2020 onwards they appear to relate to riser cupboard doors on various landings but the dates are all within a short period and appear to relate to the items of work on different floors dealt with on a pound rate for works. There are, for example, a number of invoices in the sum of £241.92 for sealing internally and externally fire intakes on different landings. They appear to be during the month of July in 2020. We have not been provided with a copy of the main contract for these matters but given the period of time over which these works are being undertaken, the fact that it is the same contractor and they all relate to fire prevention works, leads us to the conclusion that this was one contract which should have been the subject to consultation and appears not to have been. In those circumstances our findings on the evidence before us, or rather the lack of it on the part of the Respondent, is that the costs to the leaseholders should be reduced to a total contribution of £250 for all these items of work.

30. The only other matter that we need to consider is the management/administration charge of 30% in respect of the repair costs. For our part we can see no justification for this and it contrasts with the 8% that Mr [RESPONDENT] told us the Respondent charges for managing major works. This appears to us to be a back door way of making management charges. Ms [APPELLANT] has not actually challenged the management fee as such, which we refer to above, but in the two years that have been produced on the demands for Mr [NAME], namely £503.11 in 2020 and £408 in 2021, we consider that the offer made by Ms [APPELLANT] for each year of £200 to be a reasonable amount, which we allow. This if added to the unchallenged management charge of £247.52 in 2020 and £181.26 in 2021 would in our findings give an adequate return to the Respondent for managing this development. In future years they should consider applying a more appropriate percentage uplift of perhaps 10–15%.

31. The only other issues related to the section 20C application. We have indicated above that there are a number of people named in the application who take the benefit of any order we made together with an additional person subsequently added. Although Mr [NAME] asked us not to make such an order, he accepted it depended largely on our findings. In our findings we believe that the Respondent have not covered themselves in glory. There has been no inspection of [NAME] by Mr [NAME] since the Covid outbreak, therefore more than two years. He was not able to help us with such matters as to how many stack pipes there might be in the building, which we were told was over 17 floors with some 99 maisonettes included. There had been no attempt to review in particular the “stack” charges and we have made the findings we have as set out. In those circumstances we think it is just and equitable for an order to be made under section 20C of the Act preventing the Respondent from recovering the service charges against those persons named in the application and the person who has been recently added.

32. We also consider it appropriate for the Respondent to refund the application and hearing fee. This could be sent to Ms [APPELLANT] and she will need to ensure that it is refunded to the correct person.

Judge: Andrew Dutton

A A Dutton

Date: 15 July 2022

ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

Case reference: LON/ooBG/LSC/2021/0266 Premises: [NAME], [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

ITEM COST TENANTS’ [APPELLANT] TENANT’S COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS TENANTS COMMENTS LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL)

2019-2020

1. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors

to escape stairs

(3rd floor) -

Invoice number

391815

£1,512 £0 This is not the same job 5

times the description had the

incorrect floor this was for

floor 13. Invoice included –

job cost per [NAME] £15.41

No invoice found

Invoice included No longer challenged

(NLC)

2. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors to escape stairs

(3rd floor) - Invoice number 391814 £1,512 £0 This is not the same job 5

times the description had the

incorrect floor this was for

floor 11. Invoice included–

job cost per [NAME] £15.41

No invoice found Invoice included NLC

3. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors to escape stairs (3rd floor) - Invoice number 391813 £1,512 £0 This is not the same job 5 times the description had the incorrect floor this was for floor 9. Invoice included– job cost per [NAME] £15.41 No invoice found Invoice included NLC

4. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors to escape stairs (3rd floor) - Invoice number 391812 £1,512 £0 This is not the same job 5 times the description had the incorrect floor this was for floor 7. Invoice included – job cost per [NAME] £15.41 No invoice found Invoice included NLC

5. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors to escape stairs (3rd floor) - Invoice number 385650 £1,512 £0 This is not the same job 5 times the description on this is correct in that it is for the 3rd floor. Invoice included – job cost per [NAME] £15.41 No invoice found Invoice included NLC

6. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors to escape stairs (5th floor) – invoice number 385651 £1,512 £0 The description says what the works are i.e. new doors to escape stairs on 5th floor.

Invoice included – job cost per [NAME] £15.41 No invoice found Invoice included NLC

7. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors to escape stairs (1st floor) – invoice number 385649 £1,512 £0 The description says what the works are i.e. new doors to escape stairs on 1st floor.

Invoice included. – job cost per [NAME] £15.41 No invoice found Invoice included NLC

8. [NAME] for genset – invoice number 383597 £653.38 £250 This is a storage container for hazardous or flammable material – job cost per [NAME]

£6.67 [RESPONDENT] has already reduced to £250 as part of [NAME] job This is correct the jobs on number 8, 9, 10,11,12,13 &14 are all linked to the same series of work and therefore should be capped at £250 per leaseholder as no S20 was carried out. I can confirm that these jobs have been capped at £250 and a refund was given to leaseholders in November 2020 for the difference between the costs charged and £250. NLC

9. Install local 63A isolator for new generator set replace local defective RCCD socket outlet – invoice number 381532 £1,556.08 £0 Invoice included – job cost per [NAME] £15.86 See job number 8 (part of same job) Please see answer in number 8 NLC

10. Clean&Paint pump+engine room, fit [NAME] 90Ltr 2x jerry can full– invoice number 382003 £2,028 £0 Invoice included – job cost per [NAME] £20.68 See job number 8 (part of same job) Please see answer in number 8 NLC

11. Undertake works to Smoke AOV system £8,064.77 £0 This job was credited to Leaseholders and therefore not charged. – Job cost per [NAME] £0.00 See job number 8 (part of same job) Please see answer in number 8 NLC

12. installation of engines to feed the vent system to corridors Invoice number 32146 £15,383.3 4 £0 This job is in relation to fitting engines to the vent system; there are three jobs all of which are to do with the same works therefore we capped the individual cost of the three jobs together at

£250 rather than £392.08. this has already been credited to [NAME] job number 8 (part of same job) Please see answer in number 8 NLC

13. installation of engines to feed the vent system to corridors – Invoice number 31889 £15,383.3 4 £0 This job is in relation to fitting engines to the vent system; there are three jobs all of which are to do with the same works therefore we capped the individual cost of the three jobs together at

£250 rather than £392.08. this has already been credited to [NAME] 12 & 14 See job number 8 (part of same job) Please see answer in number 8 NLC

14. installation of engines to feed the vent system to corridors – Invoice number 31455 £7,691.68 £0 This job is in relation to fitting engines to the vent system there are three jobs all of which are to do with the same works therefore we capped the individual cost of the three jobs together at

15. Test inspect and service smoke extract fans – Invoice number 389388 £30,702.9 3 £0 This was to test and inspect the communal smoke extractor fans in the building.

– Job cost per [NAME] £313.02 See job number 8 (part of same job) This is a separate job and not related to the previous jobs that were linked. But as amount is over £250 per Leaseholder we will refund the amount of £63.02 as the difference between the cost and the capped amount. NLC

16. Undertake agreed builders works water boosted pump room to enable new equipment to be installed – Invoice number 381637 £2,431.70 £0 Works were to make the boosted water plant room good to install new equipment as part of the system Invoice included – [NAME] charge £24.79 No invoice Invoice included NLC

17. Take off existing metal door to water pump room & install – Invoice number 380276 £1,080 £0 Invoice included. – Job cost per [NAME] £11.01 No invoice found Invoice included NLC

18. audio adaption work to door entry system - grant funded - £4,308 £0 This job was grant funded and therefore the charge was refunded to [NAME]. This has already been refunded. – Job cost per [NAME] £0.00 Refund NLC

19. backsurge to kitchen sink – Invoice number 825102 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors. Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £1.30 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice For all invoices falling within the green coding we reduce the costs by 50% as referred to at paragraphs 22 to 24 of our decision

20. Blocked wc – Invoice number 824035 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors. Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £1.30 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

21. blocked drain on balconly – Invoice number 821244 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors [NAME] cost £1.30 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

22. Blocked balcony drain – Invoice number 821168 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

23. [NAME] backsurge – Invoice number 821137 £159.78 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £1.63 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

24. blocked bath & drains in balcony

– Invoice number £204.52 £0 Awaiting invoice – [NAME] cost £2.09 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice All matters highlighted in red have been waived by the Respondent as set out in Mr [RESPONDENT] statement at paragraph 4

25. blocked sink aff flat – Invoice number 818122 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included – [NAME] cost £1.30

No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

26. [NAME] - 16/12/19 -

Communal Fire Alarm going off – Invoice number £123.85 £0 Awaiting invoice – [NAME] cost £1.26 No invoice See 24 above

27. [NAME] leaking issue – Invoice number 812326 £159.78 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors [NAME] cost £1.63 Should be covered by [NAME]

28. blocked wc – Invoice number 811747 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors [NAME] cost £1.30 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

29. trace leak into ground floor celing Invoice number 794300 £125.54 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors. Awaiting invoice

– [NAME] cost £1.28 Should be covered by [NAME]

30. Blocked drain in balcony at Invoice number £127.82 £0 Awaiting invoice – [NAME] cost £1.30 No invoice

31. [NAME] 22/10 backsurge affecting bath and basin Invoice number £159.78 £0 Awaiting invoice – [NAME] cost £1.63 No invoice

32. blocked bath due to stack – Invoice number 796226 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors. Invoice included– [NAME] cost

£1.30

33. wc backing/ flooding and blocked Invoice number 802344 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

34. backsurge to wc – Invoice number £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors. Awaiting invoice

35. [NAME] backsurge aff – Invoice number £159.78 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Awaiting invoice

– [NAME] cost £1.63 No invoice

36. blocked KS and Bath also smell – Invoice number £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Awaiting invoice

37. Backsurge to kitchen sink while it rains – Invoice number £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Awaiting invoice

– [NAME] cost £1.30 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice.

38. [NAME] - 21/09/19 Backsurge to Kitchen sink – Invoice number £159.78 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Awaiting invoice

39. blocked toilet – Invoice number 793528 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors [NAME] cost £1.30 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

40. Bocked Kitchen sink – Invoice number 790388 £159.78 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

41. Blocked wc aff no – Invoice number 792125 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

42. backsurge to bath – Invoice number 790278 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

43. Back surge to WC affecting Invoice number 788756 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

44. Flat trace leak into flat Invoice number 380936 £232.34 £0 Invoice included – call out and contractor fee for tracing a leak and repairing it from communal pipes. – [NAME] cost £2.37 Should be covered by [NAME]

45. leak in 1st floor as per [NAME] number 380551 £476.34 £0 This job was to clear a blockage on a communal drain on floor 2 as well as making good areas on 1st and 2nd floor. Invoice included. – [NAME] cost £4.86 No invoice Invoice included NLC

46. Blocked bath # new bath was installed tenant £127.82 £0 This job should be refunded as it was in regards to a bath installation. – [NAME] cost £1.30 Refund

47. carry out shutdown so olli can carry out works at £325.74 £0 This job should be refunded as it was in regards to shutting down the water supply to carry out works in a [NAME] – [NAME] cost

£3.32 Refund

48. Trace leak coming from flat Invoice number 764804 £49.76 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £0.51 Should be covered on [NAME]

49. We have cleared the blockage affecting the boiler £127.82 £0 This job should be refunded as it was in regards to a boiler. – [NAME] cost

£1.30 Refund

50. blocked kit and bathroom sink – Invoice number 782339 £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £1.30

51. [NAME] 16/4 leak affecting Invoice number 375116 £276.40 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £2.82 Should be covered by [NAME]

52. ##[NAME] [NAME] [NAME] 14/4/19 £275.95 £0 This job should be refunded as it is in an individual [NAME] – [NAME] cost

£2.81 Refund

53. Blocked kitchen sink backsurging into washing Invoice number £127.82 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Awaiting invoice

54. #[NAME]# backsurge to wc Invoice number 766305 £158.62 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £1.62 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

55. [NAME] 11/4/19 backsurge to toilet Invoice number 766182 £159.78 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

56. [NAME] could be blocked waste pipe Invoice number 765390 £158.62 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

7 57. Replace pumps as per quote 462315

– Invoice number 371581 £11,280 £0 This was to replace the boosted water pumps at the block. the quote is what was the price given by our contractor. – [NAME] cost £115.00 Invoice included. Is this relating to the water pressure? Tenants have water pressure issues throughout the whole block This is relating to water pressure at the block. Items numbered 57 to 60 Allowed see paragraph 26 of our decision

58. Call out for the pumps at [NAME] number 376846 £700.97 £0 This was a call out to inspect the communal boosted water pumps at the block. - [NAME] cost £7.15 See job number 57 -

Is this relating to the water pressure? Tenants have water pressure issues throughout the whole block This is relating to water pressure at the block.

59. Low water pressure to [NAME] aff no – Invoice 376133 £311.59 £0 Invoice included, this was a call out to look at the boosted water system to the block. – [NAME] cost £3.18 See job number 57 – water pressure? This is relating to water pressure at the block.

60. call out wilo pump Invoice number 371582 £210.60 £0 This is a call out to look at the boosted pump system. [NAME] cost £2.15 Refer back to job number 57 -

Water pressure? This is relating to water pressure at the block.

61.

62. no water coming through hot tap in [NAME] £256.40 £0 This job should be refunded as it is in regards to an individual [NAME]. [NAME] cost £2.61 Refund

63. Blocked bath Invoice number - 758354 £123.14 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors [NAME] cost £1.26 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

2020-2021

64. trace leak affecting [NAME] number 855726 £70.68 £0 -[NAME] cost £0.72 – Invoice included. Should be covered by [NAME]

65. FIRE PANEL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IS SHOWING 3 FAULTS – Invoice number 776153 £125.35 £1.28 Invoice included and gives description of works done – individual cost £1.28 This jobs has multiple entries and call outs from 2018 till 2020.

clearly has not been attended to correctly or fixed. We agree to pay for the first call out only as it has not been resolved.

These jobs are all related to the fire alarm system. The overall cost per leaseholder for these jobs is £13.20 P159 of the bundle of invoices, disallowed. See paragraph 27 of our decision

66. EST fire board alarm beeping - stating fault - ground floor – Invoice number 850932 £97.64 £0 Invoice included and gives description of works done. – [NAME] cost £1.00 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65

67. check, test, investigate, rectify, reset and/or report faults on alarm panel – Invoice number 822636 £100.73 £0 Invoice included and gives description of works done. – [NAME] cost £1.03 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65

68. beeping sound coming from a control panel – Invoice number 774833 £121.34 £0

Invoice included and gives description of works done – individual cost £1.24 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65

69. fire alarm in the lobby area - showing 2 faults – invoice number 786600 £125.35 £0

Invoice included and gives description of works done – individual cost £1.24 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65 P160 of the bundle of invoices, disallowed see paragraph 27 of our decision

70. check fire alarm panel Invoice number 849754 £167.22 £0

Invoice included and gives description of works done. – individual cost £1.70 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65

71. AOV Alarm going off at eletrical bo in lobby Invoice number 857962 £181.64 £0

Invoice included and gives description of works done. – individual cost £1.85 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65

72. beeping noise on the panel on the ground floor shows a faulty zone Invoice number 819613 £189.49 £0

Invoice included and gives description of works done. – individual cost £1.93 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65

73. fire alarm system on ground floor bleeping Invoice number 794736 £201.26 £0

Invoice included and gives description of works done. – individual cost £1.93 Refer to job 65 Please see answer in 65 P 163 of the bundle of invoices disallowed see para 27 of our decision

74. Investigate leak between properties Invoice number 824670 £127.82 £0 Invoice included– individual cost £1.30 Should be covered under [NAME]

75. Blocked drain at front of no 80 Invoice number 867952 £132.42 £0 Invoice included - – individual cost £1.35 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

76. [NAME] blocked affecting [NAME] – invoice number 867795 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35

77. backsurge to wc affecting [NAME] number 866910 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

78. blocked WC affecting [NAME] number 864806 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

79. Investigate blockage affectingproperty Invoice number 866440 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35

80. Blocked WC affecting [NAME] number 865636 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

81. Blocked balcony drain afecting [NAME] invoice number 863618 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

82. blocked kitchen sink, bath and whb affecting [NAME] invoice number 863318 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35

83. blocked wc affecting [NAME] invoice number 859641 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

84. blocked kitchen sink, [NAME] affecting [NAME] invoice number 857887 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

85. blocked kitchen sink affecting [NAME] invoice number 843767 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35

86. backsurge to WC affecting [NAME] invoice number 853402 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

87. Blocked Bath & WC affecting [NAME] invoice number 853159 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

88. Trace leak affecting hallway of [NAME] from above invoice number 853122 £132.42 £0 Invoice included - – individual cost £1.35 should be covered under [NAME]

89. [NAME] affecting [NAME] invoice number 849269 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35

90. Wc blocked affecting [NAME] invoice number 850496 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

91. blocked bath and whb affecting [NAME] number - 848086 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

92. blocked KS affecting [NAME] number 846785 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35

93. Blocked wc affecting [NAME] number 846334 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by [NAME] included

- – individual cost £1.35 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

94. Blocked WC affecting [NAME] number 844153 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

95. Blocked WC, WHB and Kitchen affecting [NAME] number 843305 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared bycontractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.35

96. blocked wc affecting [NAME] number 841572 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

97. blocked KS afecting [NAME] number 841415 £132.42 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

98. Works to Communal Alarm

– Awaiting invoice £132.43 £0 Job number 848162 - IN HRS EMG - 29/07/20

Attended emergency call to investigate panel sounding.

Found 10 faults. Fan PSU on each floor. Went to PSU cupboard on each floor and manually reset.

Faults cleared. -individual cost £1.35

No invoice

999. Works to Communal AAlarm

– Awaiting invoice £132.43 £0 08/07/20 IN HRS EMG

Attended site for emergency call out

Upon arrival found fire alarm panel displaying Aov 10 x power supply units faults from all the floors. Power switch monitors on all floors found displaying power fault, resetted each one individually, all cleared.

System back to normal Fault was caused by the power cut.

System found with faults and left without any faults or disablements in fully operational condition.

individual cost £1.35 No invoice

100. job [NAME] to cover engineers attendances on varios jobs £139.15 £0 This job should be refunded – [NAME] cost £1.42 Refund

101. [NAME] leaking issues affecting [NAME] number 853138 £166.45 £0 Invoice included - – individual cost £1.70 Should be covered under [NAME]

102. [NAME] backsurge affecting [NAME] £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Awaiting invoice- – individual cost

£1.70 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

103. [NAME] 9th floor [NAME] leak Invoice number 866136 £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.70

Should be covered under [NAME]

104. [NAME] leaking issues 9th floor Invoice number 864199 £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.70 Should be covered under [NAME]

105. [NAME]- back surge to [NAME] 20/12/20 Invoice number 863545 £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

106. [NAME] - 04/10

backsurge to [NAME] number 855509 £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.70

107. [NAME] blocked we affecting [NAME] number 848587 £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

108. [NAME] out leakage issue affecting [NAME] number 846311 £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

109. [NAME] wc blocked affecting [NAME] number 843076 £166.99 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included - – individual cost

£1.70

110. very low water pressure to upstairs only affecting [NAME] number 866849 £218.75 £0 This should be refunded as it is in regards to an individual [NAME] not a communal issue – [NAME] charge

£2.23 Refer to job number 57 in the year 2019-2020

Refund

111. FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846556 £241.92 £250 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 13 - [NAME] cost £2.47 there are multiple jobs all of which are to do with the same works therefore this should be capped at £250 – section 20 should have been sent out There are 9 jobs for sealing intake cupboards on different floors these jobs are all linked between 111 & 119, the total charge is less than £250 per [NAME] so no refund on this. We find that all invoices from 111 to 133 on the schedule are caught by the failure ion the part of the Respondent to consult under s20 of the Act and these are therefore included in those for which a concession has been made (see 121 – 129)

112. . FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846551 £241.92 £0 t is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 15 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

113. . FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846579 £241.92 £0 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 7 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

114. . FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846637 £241.92 £0 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 1 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

115. FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846638 £241.92 £0 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 3 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

116. .FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846634 £241.92 £0 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 5 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

117. FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846563 £241.92 £0 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 11 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

118. FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846381 £241.92 £0 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 19 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

119. FRA intake, to seal internally and externally. Invoice number 846569 £241.92 £0 It is not the same job 9 times it is for a different floor on each job this is for floor 9 - [NAME] cost £2.47 See job number 111 Please see answer in job number 111

120. FRA: [NAME] FD30S doors to escape stairs 3rd floor Invoice number 817459 £1,512.00 £0 This work was in regards to the 17th floor and not the 3rd floor as per description

– invoice included – [NAME] charge

£15.41 Refer back to job 111 This is not linked to the jobs above or below therefore is chargeable to [NAME].

121. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846105 £3,884.11 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 7th floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 This is not linked to the jobs above but is linked to the jobs between 121 & 129 the total charge per [NAME] is over £250 therefore a refund of £106.40 is due as the difference between the charged price and £250.

122. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846013 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 13th floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

123. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846018 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 11th floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

124. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846102 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 9th floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

125. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846112 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 3rd floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

126. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846109 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 5th floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

127. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846012 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 15th floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

128. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846007 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 17th floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

129. [NAME], riser cupboard doors adjacent to stairwell Invoice number 846224 £3,884.15 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the 1st floor and not the same job 9 times – [NAME] cost £39.60 Refer to job 111 Please see answer in 121

130. [NAME]: [NAME] for the doors Invoice number 853250 £3,915.48 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the communal doors on the 11th floor – [NAME] cost £39.92 Refer to job 111 this is not linked to the jobs above or below therefore is chargeable to [NAME]. We find that these items of expenditure fall within the provisions of s20 of the Act and as conceded by the Respondent for items 121 – 129 these two at 130 and 131 should be included in such concession

131. G.[NAME] [NAME]: [NAME] that were needed for the cupboard doors Invoice number 857112 £4,233.60 £0 Invoice included – this is for works to the communal cupboard doors – [NAME] cost £43.16 Refer to job 111 his is not linked to the jobs above or below therefore is chargeable to [NAME]. See 130 above

134. Leak in kitchen affecting [NAME] number £258.78 £0 This job should be refunded as it is an individual [NAME] not a communal issue – [NAME] cost £2.64 Refund

135. [NAME] leaking wc affecting [NAME] number 851836 £286.81 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £2.92 Should be covered under [NAME]

136. [NAME] back surge affecting [NAME] 16/8/20 Invoice number 849838 £288.60 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £2.94 No evidence on the invoice that this job is related to stack – Generic invoice

137. for invoice only from 26.11.19

- problems with cold water Invoice number £335.99 £0 This is an individual [NAME] job so this needs to be refunded – [NAME] charge £3.43 Refund

138. stopcock is jammed affecting [NAME] £377.04 £0 This is an individual [NAME] job so this needs to be refunded – [NAME] charge £3.84 Refund

139. [NAME] leaking issues affecting [NAME] number 866274 £407.71 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £4.16 Should be covered under [NAME]

140. ## [NAME] affecting [NAME] number 843995 £407.71 £0 The invoice will relate to [NAME] that reported the blockage. However the blockage will in nearly all cases be caused by a gathering in the communal stack that has to be cleared by contractors Invoice included

– [NAME] cost £4.16 Should be covered under [NAME]

141. Leak from roof into [NAME] whenever it rains Invoice number 817899 £472.64 £0 Yes this is a leak from the roof of the block into a [NAME]. – [NAME] cost £4.82 Should be covered under [NAME]

142. low water pessure to [NAME] – investigate Invoice number 859660 £601.27 £1.26 Invoice included – [NAME] cost £6.13 Owners of [NAME] had someone come out to check a similar issue and was charged £126 (which we have a invoice for)

When HSL came to [NAME] for this job should have been a call out.

Why was this job charged £601.27?

Furthermore, this leads to us worrying about the inflation of prices for HSL jobs and other jobs taken out This is answered separately This sum is allowed as are those at numbers 143 to 144 of the schedule. See paragraph 26 of our decision

143. Fit bypass to tank on 8th floor & alter pipework Invoice number 865242 £1,581.60 £0 Yes this is works to a communal water tank. – Invoice included – [NAME] charge £16.12 Refer to job 142 This is not in relation to the job in 142 this is regarding fitting a bypass to a communal water tank not pressure in one [NAME].

144. no water to [NAME] after aa woods went Invoice number 846147 £593.81 £0 Invoice included – [NAME] cost £6.05 Refer to job 142 This is not in relation to the job in 142 this is regarding no water to the block not pressure in one [NAME].

145. provide remote monitoring service for Fire Alarm, smoke ventilation system for 12 months Invoice number 821154 £736.20 £0 Invoice included – job information on invoice – [NAME] cost £7.51 No invoice NLC

146. Works to Communal Alarm. Invoice awaited £892.96 £0 Job number 846386 - The following fittings failed test and replacements required 2x twin 58w T8 3hr maintained, self-contained fittings (Propose x2 new vapour proof fittings - non sor item) Located in lift motor room at top of stairwell. 2x 28w 4pin lamp and batteries. Located on roof wall facing Canary wharf.5x 16w 4pin lamp and batteries. Located at1.top of stairwell before door to roof stairs.2.floor 17

stairwell.3.floor 9 stairwell. [NAME] cost £9.10

No invoice

1.[NAME] 2019-2020 £503.11 £200 We had a reduced service due to covid, yet we are paying 309% more in admin fees from estimate to actual We have found that the mark up of 30% is excessive and unreasonable and agree the reduced sum offered by Ms [APPELLANT] for this heading

2. [NAME] 2020-2021 £192.14 £200 We had a reduced service due to covid, yet we are paying 309% more in admin fees from estimate to actual We have found that the mark up of 30% is excessive and unreasonable and agree the reduced sum offered by Ms [APPELLANT] for this heading, noting that the actual cost was £408 for the year