First-tier Tribunal rules on service charge challenges

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/32UH/LSC/2018/0036

Property : 34 [NAME_1], Lincoln, Lincolnshire, [POSTCODE]

Applicant Represented by : [NAME_2] [NAME_5]

Respondents (1)

(2)

Represented by : [COMPANY_22] (Management Company) [COMPANY_14] (Landlord)

[NAME_15], Counsel [NAME_17], [COMPANY_20], solicitors

Type of Application : Service charges, Section 27A and 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Tribunal Members : Judge C. P. Tonge, LLB, BA

Mr P Mountain

Date : 21 July 2021

DECISION

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021

2

The background to the application

1. This case comes before the Tribunal by way of an application dated 6 May 2018 from the Applicant, [NAME_2], the long leaseholder of a terraced house at 34 [NAME_1], Lincoln, Lincolnshire, [POSTCODE], "the property". The Applicant made it clear in the application that [NAME_5], who holds financial power of attorney for the Applicant is authorised to act on the Applicants behalf, ([NAME_6] describes himself as a trouble shooter).

2. The application calls into question payability and reasonableness of service charges for service charge years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. An order under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 is requested. An order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is also requested.

3. The First Respondent is [COMPANY_22], the management company. The second Respondent is [COMPANY_14], the landlord of the property. Both Respondents are represented by [COMPANY_20], Solicitors and [NAME_15] of Counsel.

4. The property is contained within a purpose built securely gated [NAME_23] complex that lies between the Fossdyke canal and the A57 a short distance outside Lincoln. The site has a number of dwellings, that has increased as the site has continued to be developed. It is a complicated service charge structure in that the First Respondent is a Party to the head lease that relates to the part of the site accommodating the Applicant's property, other site head leases and the lease for the property.

5. The result of this interaction of leases is that other occupiers of the estate pay a contribution to the service charge account that relates to the part of the estate that houses the property. In addition to the contributions from other users of the estate there are then some payments into that service charge account for services rendered to occupiers of the complex that are not covered by the services provided as a result of the service charge contribution, thus adding more income into that account. The remaining service charge cost is then divided between the residential occupiers.

6. As such the service charges demanded from the Applicant are as follows: • 2015, with 334 [NAME_24], service charge costs x 0.2205%, being a demand per residential leaseholder for £891.22 (for the full year). The Applicant acquired his lease in this year and has paid the apportioned amount demanded of him. • 2016, 348 [NAME_24], service charge costs x 0.2140%, £904.40 demanded from the Applicant and paid.

3

• 2017, [NAME_25], service charge costs x 0.2084%, £916.99 demanded from the Applicant and not paid. • 2018, [NAME_25], service charge costs x 0.2079%, £962.82 demanded from the Applicant and not paid.

7. [NAME_26] issued Directions on 6 July 2018. Direction 5 requires the Applicant's statement of case to be "done by means of a schedule or spreadsheet arranged in date order with separate columns to show (a) each disputed item; (b) the reasons why the item is disputed; (c) the amount (if any) the Applicant is willing to pay; and (d) a space for the Respondent's comments on each item."

8. On 17 August 2018, following an application made by the Applicant the above Directions were amended by a further Direction being made by a Tribunal Judge, the further Direction being, " The Respondent should provide the Applicant with facilities to inspect and copy the relevant invoices and receipts for the years in question."

9. On 24 August 2018 the Directions were further amended by a letter being sent to the parties, stating, "The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has now confirmed that facilities to inspect and copy relevant invoices and receipts will be made available to the Applicant and that it is the Applicant’s intention to have completed this exercise by the end of August 2018. The Tribunal accordingly orders the Applicant to submit an amended statement of case, which must comply with Direction 5, by 21 September 2018."

10. On 15 October 2018 the Applicant served his amended statement of case (served late) and it is not set out in accordance with Direction 5, in that although it could be described as a schedule it is not in columns. Further, where the Applicant has indicated how much he would be prepared to pay it is consistently indicated as the whole amount is in issue.

11. On 30 October 2018 both Respondents served a joint application that the cases against them should be struck out.

12. On 13 November 2018 the Applicant served a response to that application.

13. On 3 April 2019 the case in relation to the application to strike out was heard at Lincoln County Court. Judge Tonge (sitting alone) declined to strike out the Applicant's case. The Tribunal then considered how best to get this case ready for its final hearing and a Decision relating to the strike out application and Directions were issued. Now that the final Decision has been made, the Decision of 3 April 2019 will be annexed to this Decision as Annex 2. Direction 14 requires that there be a mutual exchange of witness statements by 26 June 2019. At this hearing and subsequently, [NAME_293] and [NAME_15] have represented the interests of both Respondents.

14. There have been several attempts to list this case for its final hearing, taking into account dates of availability. The listing of the case was made additionally complex by the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.

15. The case had a final hearing date fixed to commence on 3 February 2020, to last 5 days at Nottingham. The Applicant made an application to vacate this hearing on the basis that he could not be available to attend the hearing. Judge Tonge (considering the written application alone) agreed to vacate the hearing. There followed an application by the Respondents for the Applicant's case to be struck out on the basis that the Tribunal had been mislead by the Applicant as to availability in the future for relisting the hearing.

16. Judge Tonge (considering the written application alone on 6 February 2020) declined to strike out the Applicant's case. The Decision of 6 February 2020 will be annexed to this Decision as Annex 3.

17. The Tribunal makes the point that at the Case Management Hearing on 3 April 2019 and on several occasions since then, it has been stated that the Applicant has the benefit of legal advice from a barrister. In such circumstances the Tribunal would not expect to receive many emails from the Applicant. The Applicant has sent 153 emails to the Tribunal office during the currency of this case, 6 May 2018 to 9 July 2021. This has placed an enormous burden upon the Tribunal in dealing with these email communications, some of which were long and complicated. This resulted in Judge Tonge having to issue 7 further Directions (not mere amendments to existing Directions) on 14 July 2019, 17 July 2019, 19 July 2019, 25 July 2019 ( in answer to an application for permission to appeal against earlier Directions that were not subject to appeal at that stage because the case was still at an interlocutory stage), 16 November 2020, 7 December 2020.

18. The last set of Directions are dated 22 December 2020. These Directions will be annexed to this Decision at Annex 4. The Tribunal particularly draws attention to paragraphs 17 and 18 of these Directions. In these paragraphs the Tribunal deals with the Applicant making a misleading representation.

19. In addition to the Directions above, on 10 December 2020 an email was sent to the Applicant, prepared by Judge Tonge, indicating the circumstances in which a witness could be called at a tribunal hearing. This was necessary because it appeared to be the case that despite access to a barristers legal advice, the Applicant simply did not understand the circumstances in which a witness can be asked to give oral evidence.

5

20. The Parties served separate hearing bundles. The Respondents' served 8 lever arch files of evidence and four large (A 1 size) detailed plans of the 140 acre site that accommodates the property. These are endorsed with the location of issues raised in the application, together with photographs of the site (sent to the members of the Tribunal in late August 2020). The Applicant served a further 2 lever arch files of evidence (sent to the members of the Tribunal in early September 2020). The evidence in these lever arch files will not be dealt with here, but will be referred to in the remainder of the Decision, where necessary. These were served in preparation for a hearing fixed to start in September 2020, along with skeleton arguments on both sides. However, this five day slot was vacated prior to its commencement.

21. The written case involves a [NAME_27] Schedule that goes through all 278 areas of dispute between the Parties. The Applicant's summary of his case is contained within the first column of the schedule, the Respondents’ in the second column and the Tribunal has utilised a third column to endorse the paragraph number in the Decision that deals with the [NAME_27] Schedule item. This is included in the Decision as annex 1.

22. The written evidence contains cross allegations of poor conduct on the part of the Applicant and the Applicant's father [NAME_5] on the one side and of servants of the Respondents on the other. The Tribunal has declared during the Case Management Hearing and on numerous occasions since that it has no jurisdiction over criminal matters (save for contempt of the Tribunal) and that as such the Tribunal will consider whether a service charge can be charged under the terms of the lease and if so, whether it is a reasonable charge or charged within a scale of charges that are reasonable. Where there are allegations of criminal conduct, these should be reported to the police.

23. There are three other cases pending before the Tribunal that involve issues at this site. One is a service charges case, with the Applicant in the present case also being an applicant in the second case. This will cover the same sort of issues as are determined in this case. The second is whether or not to grant recognition to a tenants association at the site that already has a recognised tenants association. The third is an application for the Tribunal to consider appointment of a manager. These cases have all been stayed pending the outcome of the present case. Further, the present case is now very old having commenced three years ago. Further, the case involves cross allegations of poor and/or criminal conduct on going at the site between the Parties or their servants, no doubt causing stress to the recipients. As such the Tribunal has decided that this case must be finalised as soon as possible.

24. The quickest way of listing a final hearing would have been to hold it via the Tribunal video platform, but the Applicant does not have the hardware or

6

band width to join in such a hearing and refused to permit the Respondents to supply him with both.

25. The Respondents indicated that they would join a video platform hearing and assist the Applicant with the issues that were preventing a video hearing taking place, but the Applicant refused that offer of assistance.

26. The Applicant continued to require a face to face hearing, with all persons present in the hearing room as per the procedure available before the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined that this would lead to unacceptable delay.

27. The Tribunal decided that the only issue preventing a video platform hearing was the Applicants lack of video capable equipment and band width. As such the Tribunal decided to arrange for a hybrid hearing with essential personnel in the hearing room and witnesses attending by video. Directions indicated that the Tribunal, now in possession of detailed plans and photographs, were no longer of the opinion that a site visit was necessary.

28. The Tribunal has not been unable to utilise a court or tribunal room capable of dealing with this hybrid hearing, other than use of its own hearing rooms in Manchester, to which the Applicant objected. As a result the Tribunal booked conference facilities at the Double Tree Hilton Hotel in Lincoln and arranged for security staff and tribunal staff to attend.

29. In preparation for the hearing, fixed to commence with a five day listing on 12 July 2021, the Respondents' served a film of a fly over of the estate, recorded with the use of a drone and marking various points on video, pointing out some features of the site.

The hearing

30. The hearing commenced at 10am on Monday 12 July 2021. In addition to the two members of the Tribunal the Applicant and his father [NAME_5] were present, with [NAME_15] (Counsel) and [NAME_28] on behalf of the Respondents.

31. The Tribunal made it clear that the case has been listed for 5 days because of the fact that there are 278 areas of service charge in issue, some of which are sub-divided. However, the amount that the Applicant challenges is well below £4,000 and proportionality demands that the Tribunal cannot allocate any more hearing time to this case. In so far as hearing evidence is concerned, the case will finish on Friday 16 July 2021 and the Parties must conduct their cases accordingly.

7

32. The Respondents' had indicated that they wished to make an application that the Tribunal should refuse to permit [NAME_5] to continue to represent his son in the hearing, on the basis that he has been involved in behaviour that is not conducive with his representing his son in the hearing. This was supported by a witness statements from [NAME_32] (non-practicing solicitor) and the [NAME_36], both of whom were in video attendance. It was clear to the members of the Tribunal that if this were to go ahead in the manner of a contested issue, that it would involve the making of cross allegations, use up hearing time and set the case off considering issues that the Tribunal would rather not delve in to. As such the Tribunal decided in advance of starting the hearing that it would be [NAME_39], just and reasonable to decline to go through all of this evidence, indicating that the Tribunal wanted to concentrate on the issues that it had jurisdiction to determine, being whether service charges are chargeable and reasonable, rather than an argument between the Parties about who has done what during the currency of proceedings. The Tribunal indicating that it would take a dim view of any party, witness or advocate that failed to abide by this decision. As such it was agreed by all Parties that it was not necessary for these two witnesses to be called to give oral evidence and they were released.

33. The Applicant confirmed that he could only attend this five day hearing on Monday and Tuesday, even though the hearing dates had been fixed with his availability in mind and been set for some time.

34. Further, the Applicant confirmed that he did want his father to represent him at this hearing. The Tribunal decided that it would resolve this issue in favour of the Applicant and permit [NAME_5] to continue to represent his son, the Applicant.

35. However, the Tribunal notes that for the two days that the Applicant was present in the Tribunal room, he did not give instructions to his father, nor did [NAME_5] consult the Applicant about anything. The Tribunal has never seen an advocate, trained or not, run a case in this manner. [NAME_40] did not help the Applicant to present his case, [NAME_40] ran the Applicant's case without consulting the Applicant.

36. The Tribunal then moved to consider the remaining preliminary issues in the case.

37. The Tribunal indicated that it did not think that an inspection of the site accommodating the property was necessary, the Tribunal being in possession of four detailed plans indicating the location of parts on the site that involved issues in the case, a substantial number of photographs (54 in one bundle) and an overview video of the estate taken from a drone, with areas of the site identified on the video. [NAME_40], continued to insist that an inspection was necessary. The Tribunal did not want to decide this

8

issue against the wishes of the Applicant who's opinion was that an inspection was vital. The Tribunal decided that it would inspect the site on the afternoon of the last day of the hearing and asked [NAME_15] to arrange for this to be accommodated.

38. The Tribunal dealt with a suggested method of dealing with the points in issue as detailed in the Respondents' skeleton argument. [NAME_15] had considered each point and divided them into 15 general headings of issue, suggesting that it would save hearing time if the Tribunal adopted this approach and move from head of issues to head of issues permitting the Applicant to ask questions of [NAME_28] as each head was dealt with. The Tribunal members having read and discussed this before the start of the hearing indicated that they were generally supportive of this suggestion and asked the Applicant for his submissions. [NAME_5] objected to this idea indicating that this would be unfair to the Applicant as the Tribunal would 'miss things'. The Tribunal could not permit the case to be run in a manner that the Applicant said would be unfair and as such agreed to deal with the case in the manner that [NAME_5] suggested, starting at issue one on the [NAME_27] Schedule and going through to the end of the schedule. The Tribunal was influenced in deciding in favour of the Applicant by the fact that [NAME_5] stated that his approach would only take a couple of days to deal with the matters on the [NAME_27] Schedule.

39. The next issue was that of witnesses to attend by video link. The Applicant had sent several emails to the Tribunal relating to potential witnesses that the Applicant would like to cross examine. The Tribunal explained again, that it was up to each Party to the case to decide which potential witnesses he or it should take witness statements from. Once a witness statement was served then a witness could be required to attend the Tribunal for cross examination by the opposite Party. If a Party decides not to ask a potential witness for a witness statement then they do not appear to be cross examined. The Party has simply lost their evidence. The Tribunal will not call or issue witness summonses for persons who would be expected to support the Respondents but who have not been asked to provide witness statements. [NAME_5] appeared to accept this.

40. [NAME_5] stated that he wished to call an additional witness, [NAME_94], who had been employed by the first Respondent as a security officer at the site. The Applicant had not taken a witness statement from [NAME_44], but believed that [NAME_44] could give evidence helpful to the Applicant. [NAME_5] suggested that a witness summons might be issued. The Tribunal pointed out that it was very late in the proceedings to apply to call an additional witness and that a witness summons is not the appropriate way forward.

9

41. [NAME_15] objected to this witness being called, submitting that, in addition to this application being made very late, [NAME_44] is a disgruntled ex-employee who has brought a case for unfair dismissal against the First Respondent and is being represented before the Employment Tribunal by [NAME_40]. His evidence is therefore likely to be unfairly tainted in favour of the Applicant.

42. The Applicant stated that the witness had only told him a week ago that he is now willing to give evidence in this case.

43. The Tribunal Directed that if this application is to proceed then a witness statement must be obtained from the potential witness. That must then be served on the Respondents and the Tribunal. At that stage the Tribunal would consider whether or not the statement could be admitted into evidence. [NAME_44] must not be brought to the Tribunal room as his attendance might not be required.

44. The Tribunal then considered the issue of the Applicant’s request for disclosure of the bank statements relating to the service charge account. The Respondents have these available for production, but object to this on the basis that the accounts show information that they are not permitted to reveal pursuant to data protection and confidentiality. There was a suggestion from the Applicant that similar disclosure had been permitted in another case. The Applicant seeks disclosure of these accounts so that he can check to see if amounts said to be recharged by [NAME_46] (management agents acting on behalf of the First Respondent) have actually been recharged. The Tribunal decided that it will not order that these accounts be produced at the moment, keeping open the possibility of limited disclosure if necessary during the hearing.

45. The Tribunal in making this decision is mindful that the witness in the Tribunal room, [NAME_47], is a chartered surveyor employed by [NAME_46], is responsible for oversight of management functions at this site on behalf of the First Respondent and has signed a certificate of truth on her witness statement.

46. Next, the issue of apportionment of contributions to service charge costs on the site and additional disclosure of the factors taken into account during apportionment. The Tribunal points out that it is clear from the [NAME_27] Schedule, as completed by the Applicant, that the Applicant did not realise that [COMPANY_49] were paying a contribution to his service charge account. When the Respondents had completed their representations on the [NAME_27] Schedule they had explained that due to apportionment [COMPANY_49] were paying a contribution. Apportionment was then raised as an issue to be challenged by the Applicant.

10

47. The background to this is that the site occupies 140 acres and the buildings are built around a purpose built [NAME_23] complex that before development had been a field. [NAME_52] provides [NAME_51] for boats that may be owned by residents or non-residents. There are some thirty commercial buildings on the site. There are several different areas with their own sub leases, but the 24 hour a day security CCTV and security patrols benefit the whole site. There are contributions to the First Respondents service charge costs from [COMPANY_54], the [NAME_322], a residential elderly persons home and other long leaseholders. Apportionment is calculated by [NAME_57], a chartered surveyor. The Respondents' evidence contains documents that relate to the results of apportionment calculations. They do not detail exactly what [NAME_57] took into account in making his determination as to the proper amount to be contributed to the service charge account that is considered by the First Respondent's agents when calculating the charge demanded from the Applicant. The Applicant now seeks to investigate how [NAME_57] calculated apportionment of service charges.

48. The Tribunal is mindful of the fact that what is challenged in this case has been set out on a [NAME_27] Schedule and that the schedule must be the primary document in ascertaining what is relevant to the Tribunal. The apportionment figures are readily accessible within the Respondents written evidence. There is no specific challenge to apportionment calculations in the [NAME_27] Schedule, only challenges to specific invoices. If the Applicant had sought to challenge the calculations that have been made by [NAME_57] the Applicant would have to make that clear in the application form and then instruct a chartered surveyor (or similarly qualified expert) to consider this issue. Then the Respondents' would have had to deal with that evidence, either by accepting the evidence of the Applicant's expert or serving expert evidence to support their case. None of this has been done. The Tribunal decides that this application for further disclosure relating to apportionment is rejected as the further disclosure sought has no relevance to this case as it has been brought before the Tribunal.

49. Next, the Applicant is of the opinion that service charges cannot be charged against his service charge account until such time as the particular part of the site is completed and is then 'handed over' to be included into the service charge calculation. The Applicant therefore seeks disclosure of the dates that particular parts of the development were completed and 'handed over'.

50. [NAME_15] submits that when an area is subject to development and is being constructed, providing no benefit to the residents of the estate, all costs are development costs. They are not chargeable as a service charge cost. Once that part of the site is nearing completion and any snagging has been dealt with, its common areas commence to be an asset to the site as a whole. Then service charges attach to the extended common areas by virtue

11

of the terms of the Applicant's lease. There does not have to be a formal handing over of the developed site, just a recognition that service charges now extend to encompass it.

51. The Tribunal, having considered the terms of the Applicant's sub lease as relied upon by [NAME_15], accept [NAME_15]'s submissions. For clarity, the Tribunal uses the example of a lamp post providing lighting to a common area. Erecting the post and coupling it up to the electricity supply is a development cost, but later repair and maintenance would be a service charge cost (subject to snagging and warranties). As such whether or not there is a schedule of 'hand over dates' of particular parts of the development is irrelevant. Construction is not a service charge cost, repairs are.

52. The Tribunal then commenced to hear evidence in relation to each point on the [NAME_27] Schedule as requested by the Applicant. At the end of the normal sitting time of 4.30pm the Tribunal had heard evidence on only 7 points, as such it was obvious that the Applicants assertion that he could deal with the items on the [NAME_27] Schedule in a couple of days could not be relied upon. The Tribunal asked the Applicant to make efforts to deal with issues more quickly, suggesting that it was not necessary to keep asking the same question over again. For example it was already obvious to the Tribunal that the management agent, [NAME_46] had not obtained alternative quotes in most of the points dealt with. The Tribunal suggested that it was able to accept this as a fact in all items on the [NAME_27] Schedule, relying on [NAME_47] to inform the Tribunal if alternative quotes had been obtained in relation to a particular part of the case. On subsequent days [NAME_58] did not adopt this approach.

53. The Tribunal made arrangements for sitting hours to be extended and lunch hours shortened, with the consent and cooperation of all concerned. In doing this the Tribunal was able to provide an additional 5 hours of hearing time during the remaining four days.

54. On the morning of day 2, [NAME_40] served a statement from the prospective witness [NAME_59]. All concerned took time to read the statement. [NAME_15] initially continued his objection to this potential witness being accepted as a witness in the case. This was further discussed and [NAME_15] modified his view, agreeing with the Tribunal that the statement could be admitted on the basis that all written statements are admitted, the generality of the statement is agreed, but not necessarily every feature of it.

55. [NAME_15] had changed his position in relation to the admissibility of the statement, without the witness having to attend the hearing to be cross examined, the Tribunal decided to admit the witness statement, granting the Applicant's application. At that point [NAME_61] submitted

12

that he must be allowed to call [NAME_44] to give oral evidence. The Tribunal determined that there was no reason to permit this since the witness statement has been admitted into evidence and the Tribunal would consider its content at the appropriate time.

56. During the morning of the second day [NAME_61] took on a less cooperative attitude to the Tribunal and the Respondents. When the Tribunal asked if we could move onto the next point (keeping the limited hearing time in mind) [NAME_40] continually said that he had more questions to ask. He asked questions that were unhelpful to the Applicant's case requiring the production of further documents that the witness said that she could produce if required. In doing so he clearly thought that he was going to gain some form of advantage, but in fact all the documents he asked for were produced, helping the Respondents' case. He asked open questions on general points, rather than keeping himself to specific areas within the [NAME_27] Schedule and commenced to make submissions and short speeches, when he should have been asking questions. On the one occasion that [NAME_15] conceded a point, [NAME_40] commenced to gloat and launch into a speech stating how this supported his case that there had been poor management. Judge Tonge had to be firm with the Applicant, who became even more difficult to control.

57. After the shortened lunch break [NAME_15] came into the Tribunal room in what appeared to the Tribunal to be an unusually ruffled state. [NAME_15] informed the Tribunal that [NAME_40] had attempted to intimidate him on their way back into the hearing room. As a result [NAME_15] sought to make a fresh application that [NAME_40] be prevented from further representing [NAME_62].

58. [NAME_15] stated that [NAME_40] had said in a voice that was meant to be heard by [NAME_15] the words "Bar Standards". This being a reference to the disciplinary body governing the conduct of barristers. The words "the last one" were also heard. [NAME_15] thought that this was an attempt to intimidate him with a threat that he was to be reported to the Bar Standards Board. The Tribunal heard from [NAME_40] who explained that this was a reference to [NAME_64] a prior barrister who had been complained about, not [NAME_15], who had overheard part of a conversation between father and son.

59. The Tribunal accepted this explanation and finding in favour of the Applicant, did not prevent [NAME_40] from further representing his son. The Tribunal added that it is not appropriate to have conversations of this nature in these circumstances and that the Tribunal did not want to hear any more mention of the Bar Standards Board.

60. The case continued, moving through the [NAME_27] Schedule. The general behaviour of [NAME_40] did not improve. When [NAME_47] stated that

13

an invoice had been recharged [NAME_40] asked to see the bank statements. This was clearly an attempt to challenge the witness’s integrity, she having signed a certificate of truth. The Tribunal was content to accept [NAME_47]'s evidence, [NAME_40] was not. Bank statements were not produced.

61. [NAME_40] asked a question that permitted [NAME_47] to explain how hard she worked on behalf of her the management company and how cheaply [NAME_46] were providing their services to the site (thereby reducing service charge costs), adding that her company had resigned from their duties effective 31 August 2021. [NAME_40] challenged the competency of [NAME_46] as management agents on the basis that failure to make a proper profit out of this contract was evidence that [NAME_46] were poor managers. This resulted in [NAME_47] stating that [NAME_46] had resigned as management agents for this site because of the threatening and uncooperative conduct of [NAME_40] against their staff, in particular against [NAME_66]. It was questions from [NAME_40] that brought this information before the Tribunal.

62. Judge Tonge, now being very concerned about the way [NAME_40] was conducting the case, decided to address [NAME_62] and explained that his father was doing a very poor job of representing him and asked [NAME_62] if he could continue to attend the Tribunal for the remainder of the week. [NAME_62] said that he could not. The Tribunal had been further considering the question of continued representation, but decided to permit [NAME_40] to continue in his role, due to the fact that the Applicant did not intend to attend for the rest of the hearing.

63. As [NAME_15] stood to leave the Tribunal room at the end of the second day, he said to Judge Tonge and Mr Mountain, words to the effect, "[NAME_46] and [NAME_19] had been complained about and now me". Judge Tonge responded in an impromptu, light hearted way, the actual words Judge Tonge cannot remember, but has been recorded by [NAME_40] as, "Who has not been complained about?"

64. Nothing in the above should in any way be thought to reflect upon [NAME_15] who had done nothing to bring about any complaint against him. Further, nothing in the above was meant to upset the Applicant or his representative.

65. At the start of day 3, [NAME_58] served an application on the Tribunal that Judge Tonge should recuse himself for exhibiting bias against the Applicant. The comment that Judge Tonge had made was said to have been hurtful to the Applicant [NAME_63] and his representative [NAME_40]. Further, the application stated that the comment revealed that Judge Tonge considered [NAME_40] to be a serial complainer, this being a biased view.

14

66. The recusal application went onto refer to some of the complaints that the Applicant has made. This recusal application also called into question the behaviour of [NAME_15]. The Tribunal heard from [NAME_40] ([NAME_62] no longer being present) and from [NAME_15].

67. Judge Tonge decided that he would not recuse himself. The test is an objective one, would the reasonable person, knowing the facts, consider that a statement made reveals bias against the person alleging bias?

68. Judge Tonge recited all the many decisions that he (sitting or considering written applications alone) and more recently sitting with Mr Mountain, has made in favour of the Applicant (referred to in this judgement above, but summarised as; a) two applications to strike out the case, b) several applications to adjourn the hearing date, c) two applications to prevent [NAME_40] from representing the Applicant, d) agreeing that the hearing to be conducted by following the [NAME_27] Schedule in numerical order rather than as described in the skeleton argument of [NAME_15], e) continued monitoring of whether it was necessary to order disclosure of service charge Bank Statements, f) agreeing to arrange for a site inspection despite plans, photographs and a video fly over of the site g) determination that the alleged intimidation against [NAME_15] may not have been a deliberate attempt to intimidate). The reasonable man would not think that Judge Tonge is in any way prejudiced against the Applicant or his father.

69. However, Judge Tonge had not in any way intended to hurt the feelings of either the Applicant or his father and Judge Tonge apologised if their feelings were hurt by what Judge Tonge had said.

70. [NAME_40] also levelled a criticism at Judge Tonge for telling the Applicant that his father was doing a poor job of representing his interests. Judge Tonge replied that he remains firmly of the belief that his comments in that regard are correct and were made in the hope that [NAME_62] might agree to continue to attend the Tribunal so that he could represent himself.

71. The hearing then continued and for the remainder of the hearing [NAME_40]'s conduct reverted to that as it had been on day one, well within acceptable Tribunal behaviour.

15

72. At the start of the fifth day of the hearing the Respondents' served an additional statement from [NAME_47] of 17 pages in length, dealing with the questions that had been asked of her by [NAME_40] during cross examination and producing 72 additional exhibits in that regard.

73. The Tribunal had almost completed the items in the [NAME_27] Schedule when the hearing came to an end. The Parties were told that the Tribunal would sit again in private session on Tuesday 20 July 2021 and Wednesday 21 July 2021.The Parties were given leave to serve written closing speeches and further, that the Applicant can provide any written evidence thought to be necessary to challenge the second statement of [NAME_47]. All to be delivered to the Tribunal by 4pm, Tuesday 20 July 2021. The Tribunal assured the Parties that if any such material needed to be taken into account in relation to issues already decided during Tuesday, the Tribunal would do so.

74. The oral hearing terminated at 1pm on Friday 16 July 2021. Those that asked were given permission to dress less formally for the inspection due to commence at 2.30pm that afternoon, it being a very hot day.

The Inspection

75. The inspection commenced at 2.30 pm on 26 July 2021. Present on behalf of the Respondents were [NAME_47] and [NAME_15], accompanied by a note taker from [NAME_69]. On behalf of the Applicant, [NAME_40]. It was a very hot day and clothing was relaxed to casual and comfortable to anyone who asked. It took one and a half hours to walk the route planned by [NAME_47], designed to show the Tribunal some of the areas in dispute. At the commencement of the inspection all persons present were handed another site plan that indicated the locations to be visited during the inspection.

76. The inspection supplemented site plans, photographs and a video fly over taken by a drone. The Tribunal had originally determined that an inspection was not necessary, but changed its view upon the insistence of [NAME_40]. The Respondents were required to arrange the inspection as the hearing went along.

77. In fact, the inspection brought it home to the Tribunal how very special this site is, being 'one of a kind' and appeared to be clean (except for goose excrement which was said to be a problem compounded by residents feeding the geese) and well maintained. Having seen the essential parts of the site, from the point of view of the case, the Tribunal did not attempt to inspect the remainder of the site that would have taken considerably longer.

16

78. The inspection moved from the large visitors car park to a [NAME_70] that features in the case. The Tribunal saw that the crossing, road markings and belisha beacons had all been removed. The dropped kerb and bubbled pedestrian approach paving slabs remained in situe. A photograph was taken.

79. The main roundabout off the A57 has not been adopted by the local authority. It has 4 bollards, one on each of the four roads approaching the main roundabout.

80. There are two large metal signs (approximately 10' high), one on each side of the unadopted road linking onto the A57. These advertise the fact that the motorist is entering or leaving '[NAME_10], [COMPANY_71], a total lifestyle concept'. Metal lettering has clearly been replaced on these signs. The Tribunal took a photograph.

81. [NAME_58] brought to our attention a sign warning that parking is for permit holders only at the side of a parked car. The Tribunal took a photograph.

82. The Tribunal observed an area of mown grass, but without buildings off to one side of the road. This is an area awaiting development, but the grass is being maintained. The Tribunal took a photograph.

83. There is a length of road where wooden posts have been erected along the edge of the road where there is an area of grass at the edge of the road and double yellow line markings. This was a considerable length of posts and it appeared to the Tribunal that the most likely reason for doing this was to stop drivers parking with wheels onto the grass area. The Tribunal took a photograph.

84. The Tribunal then walked towards Pontoon Gate 3. The pontoons are slip ways into the water and there are gates across the front of a roofed structure surrounded by fencing that leads to the slip way. Two photographs were taken, one to show two lamp posts near the pontoon and the other a close up of the gates.

85. The Tribunal then walked to [NAME_52], damaged in the past. They are electric gates that are kept open during working hours and were observed to be open. The Tribunal took a photograph. The Tribunal was informed that this belongs to [COMPANY_53], but that the First Respondent has a sub lease granting permission to move along the road to the Management Building, where part of the sub lease lets the first storey and access stairs to the First Respondent to house the security office. The lease also provides a separate landscaping store for use of the First Respondent's landscaping, [NAME_73]. The Tribunal noted that a big

17

pressure washer (photograph already seen in additional evidence) was in use.

86. The Tribunal then entered the security office, accompanied by a security officer, but by prior agreement because of confidentiality issues, without the rest of the persons at the inspection. Tribunal members wore face coverings during this part of the inspection. The entrance gives onto a curved flight of steps that curves around the inside of an exterior wall. There are toilets and a small office, the hall way then leads into a large office that houses 9 CCTV monitors, 6 are large and split screen, 3 are smaller and were single screen upon our visit. These were being monitored by a second security officer. There is a balcony outside that had chicken wire fastened to the floor as an anti slip precaution. There was some cupboard space in both offices. The walls were all a uniform pale colour.

87. The Tribunal rejoined the rest of the inspection party and looked across the part of [NAME_52] leading to the lock gates that permit boats to enter and leave onto the Fossdyke. The Tribunal saw that near to the lock gates channel there is a fence and that rising from that fence there is a tall pole with a light on it. This is the light that comes on automatically at night if a boat moves past it.

88. The Tribunal noted that there is a flag pole with ropes attached from which three flags are flying.

89. The Tribunal walked to the grounds personnel store and observed two smaller pressure washers. The medium sized pressure washer (when considering all 3 together) appeared to be well used. The store has a mezzanine floor with a ladder giving access to it. There was a ramp leaning next to a bench for the movement of heavy items including such things as large pressure washers. High visibility coats were hanging off pegs.

90. The Tribunal returned to the fob activated gate leading to the public footpath at the side of the Fossdyke and went through that gate to walk along that public footpath. This may once have been a towpath. We walked along the exterior of the site with a fence marking the outside of the site to our left and the Fossdyke on our right. The Tribunal took a photograph, from the public footpath to the fence.

91. The Tribunal walked onto the bridge over the channel that has been cut into the Fossdyke, linking [NAME_52] to the Fossdyke. The Tribunal noted that this bridge, although constructed as part of the development of the site is part of the public footpath. The Tribunal took a photograph.

92. The Tribunal walked along the public footpath until it reached another fob activated gate through the site fence and back into the site again, on to [ADDRESS], the road going around the outside of the site.

18

93. The Tribunal saw a pole with a security camera at the top of it. This was near to a track that has a stone surface that goes off the road into a tree lined area. The security camera was a short distance away from a second security camera up that track and partly masked by trees. The new camera having been installed when the older one started to be masked. The Tribunal took a photograph.

94. The Tribunal walked along the track and saw an array of 6 substantial compost containers that appeared to be full of compostable garden material. In the past these had been contaminated by having non- compostable materials put into them, requiring that they be emptied. The Tribunal took a photograph.

95. The Tribunal returned to [ADDRESS] and to the edge of part of [NAME_52] to a deep water sign on [NAME_52] bank to warn pedestrians. This has a buoyancy aid attached to it. The Tribunal took a photograph.

96. [NAME_58] contended that a short distance away we would be able to see such a sign actually standing out of [NAME_52] water. We all accompanied [NAME_58] to his chosen location, Ellisons Quay. The Tribunal notes that there are three such signs spread out around the bank of [NAME_52], but there are no such signs in the water.

97. The Tribunal walked past a block paved road which had an area of loose block paving. This being a maintenance problem, it was noted by the Tribunal, being aware that block paving work features in the case.

98. The Tribunal walked past a garden area that had been planted by the contractor [NAME_74] (this being representative of 3 such areas). The Tribunal took a photograph.

99. The Tribunal walked to a rising barrier gate that has often been damaged in the evidence before the Tribunal. On the approach to the gate there is an intercom system for communicating with security and fob activation. There is also a CCTV camera mounted quite low on a short pole, close to the gates and an ANPR camera further away mounted high on a pole. The Tribunal took two photographs.

100. The Tribunal walked past toilets (repainted in the case) and along a parade of shops with rusty bench seats outside. These are in the process of being replaced, five replacements for another area already purchased.

101. The Tribunal walked towards a shop, with two lampposts near to the shop, one of these features in the case with the wind blowing the top off the lamp. The Tribunal took a photograph.

19

102. The Tribunal then walked past a water feature near to the property. The Tribunal took a photograph.

103. The Tribunal then walked back towards the starting point at the main car park that is open to the public. The inspection was brought to an end. Photographs have been retained in the Judges papers.

THE LAW

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Section 18, meaning of service charge and relevant costs.

Briefly this defines a service charge and associated costs as the variable cost of providing the service.

Section 27A, Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction

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

Section 19, Limitation of service charges: reasonableness. (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period— (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.

20

Relevant provisions of the lease

104. The under lease for the property, title number LL330823, was made on 24 July 2015, for a term of 999 years, commencing 1 January 1999. The parties to the lease are [COMPANY_14] (the Landlord), [NAME_346] (the Tenant) and [COMPANY_76], the management company.

105. Clause 1.6 defines the development as being land within four title numbers LL330823, LL53620, LL104074 and LL208305, being the whole of the 140 acre site.

106. Clause 1.10 defines the service charge to be paid by the Applicant as a proportion of the costs, charges and expenses referred to in the Fourth Schedule, as the Management Company acting reasonably shall consider to be payable by the Applicant pursuant to the Fifth Schedule.

107. Clause 1.11 defines the common parts as all amenities upon the development used in common by the occupants of each part of the development. Hence, when snagging is over all common parts come within the service charges regime for the Applicant's lease. The Tribunal uses this example to demonstrate how the lease works with regard to inclusion within the service charge scheme as it effects the Applicant. Erecting a lamp post in a common area is a development cost, there may be snagging issues which would still be a development cost, but once switched on and working properly, repair would be a service charge cost.

108. Clause 3 requires the applicant to observe the covenants in schedule 3.

109. The First Schedule grants rights of access over roads and footpaths built and to be built as common parts on the development and use of those common parts.

110. The Third Schedule requires that the applicant pay the service charge.

111. The Fifth Schedule defines service charges as including all costs incurred by the management company in performing their management functions as defined in schedule 4 and all other sums incurred in maintenance, management and running the site including any legal costs incurred for the benefit of occupiers of any part of the development. The management company may employ a management agent and contractors. The First Respondent may charge 7.5% of the service charge costs for administration costs. Service charges can be estimated and charged in advance, with a balancing exercise (Respondent's bundle, volume A, page 17).

21

Other leases relevant to this site

112. The Respondents' bundle, volume E, section 2 and 3, contains copies of the head lease for this part of the site and head leases for other parts of the development. The First Respondent is a party to these leases.

113. The Tribunal has not seen the original sale of land or lease that must have conveyed the 140 acres between the A57 and the Fossdyke to [COMPANY_78]. The Tribunal cannot therefore see the exact details as to how the development came to gain permission to cut an entrance canal into the Fossdyke, through a public footpath and build a footbridge to maintain the route of the public footpath. Exhibited to [NAME_47]'s additional witness statement there part of an agreement made pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990between West Lindsay district [COMPANY_78], clause (k) requires that there be a bridge only for the use of the public footpath over the channel conecting [NAME_52] basin with the Fossdyke canal.

The Deliberations

114. The Tribunal members met in private session on 20 July 2021 and 21 July 2021 to determine the issues in this case. In determination of these issues the Tribunal has taken account of all the written and oral evidence in the case, including the additional evidence contained within the statement of [NAME_59], the second statement of [NAME_47], the submissions of the Applicant (dated, 20 July 2021) and the closing submissions of the Respondents (dated, 20 July 2021). The Tribunal notes that there is an application to extend the application under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to include other long leaseholders. The Tribunal notes that as a result of extended sitting times on 6 out of 7 days, the Tribunal has devoted the equivalent of 9 days hearing time to this case, with an additional site inspection.

115. The Tribunal is asked by the Respondents in their closing submissions to consider making thirteen observations in the case as findings of fact. The Tribunal prefers to deal with the issues that must be dealt with as detailed in the [NAME_27] Schedule. However, it is obvious to the Tribunal that there have been allegations of mismanagement, back dating of invoices and various levels of improper conduct on the part of the Respondents, their officers and agents. The Tribunal makes it clear that it has seen no evidence that supports any such accusations. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that this is a well run development that is run for the benefit of all persons concerned with the site.

116. The Tribunal has been asked to consider assertions that the site is being run in contravention of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Code

22

of Practice, Service Charges Residential Management Code, third edition. The assertion being that on numerous occasions [NAME_46] should have acquired alternative tenders or quotes, when they have not. The Tribunal has not been referred to any particular part of the Code, but considers two sections to be relevant.

117. Firstly, on page 5 of the Code, bottom of the first column. "Best practice requires services to be produced on an appropriate value for money basis and that competitive quotations are obtained or costs are benchmarked." The Tribunal accepts the evidence of [NAME_47] and considers [NAME_46] to have complied with this part of the guidance in that they have relied upon their experience and knowledge in running approximately 160 sites to be able to instruct cost effective contractors when the requirements of the site as a whole are taken into account. For example, the CCTV system is particularly complicated, having grown with this gated, secure site. Knowledge of the site and urgency of some repairs must be taken into account. A management agent that does not have this depth of knowledge into the requirements of the site and available contractors might have to charge far more in management fees to cover the extra work that lack of knowledge would require. There has been no breach of the Code.

118. Secondly, page 40 of the Code, Part 10.2, "selection, approval and tendering". This section is too long to recite here, but the Tribunal is satisfied that where [NAME_46] thought it necessary to obtain tenders or quotes, that they did so. There are no larger works as mentioned in the code. In considering this section, the Tribunal also concludes that there has been no breach of the Code.

119. [NAME_46] are appointed as management agents for the First Respondent. As agents for them the actions of [NAME_46] bind the First Respondent. Hence, at any point where a service charge document is sent or received by [NAME_46], it is sent or received as agents for the First Respondent.

120. The First Respondent does not charge the 7.5% that it could charge under the terms of the lease. The Tribunal was told that this is because [NAME_79] had indicated that he did not want to charge these sums out of a desire to keep service charge costs down. The Tribunal was also told that this had saved an extra charge of about £30,000 per year to the Applicant's service charge account. This is significant saving in service charge costs that are demanded from the Applicant. There is a down side to this service charge saving. Since the First Respondent does not make a profit it does not have a credit rating. [NAME_46] have had to run part of the acquisition of goods and services for the site by means of a [NAME_46] credit card, adding later a Soldo card. Also, the choice of contractor for the hire of motor vehicles was restricted to the only firm that would hire a vehicle to a company without a credit rating, [NAME_81].

23

121. The Applicant has failed to adduce any quotes that the Tribunal could compare with the service charge cost in issue. Further, the Tribunal accepts that there are often many criteria to take into account when deciding which contractor to use or which location should be used for the purchase of goods, in addition to the actual price of the goods or service.

122. The Applicant has sought the Tribunal's permission to inspect service charge bank statements where items have had to be recharged. This has been resisted by the Respondents who seek to protect confidential information. The Tribunal has kept this under review, but has not thought it necessary to inspect this account for three reasons. First, we accept the assurance of [NAME_47], on each occasion, that there has been a recharging. Secondly, we accept the evidence of [NAME_47] that the service charge accounts are subject to a bank reconciliation every three months and that this would show up any discrepancy that might exist. Further, those reconciliations are sent with the accounting information to the accountant who will inspect them as an additional check.

123. The Tribunal, as a general oversight, considers the level of service charges demanded for the four years in question to be very reasonable, more in keeping with a site with considerably less to offer in common services than this site has to offer.

124. The Tribunal now considers the submissions made by the Applicant "the submissions", dated 20 July 2021. The Tribunal notes that at the end of the hearing Mr Mountain thanked [NAME_47] for the way that she had conducted herself throughout five days of being cross examined by [NAME_40] and, when invited to join in these sentiments, [NAME_40] agreed to do so. The Tribunal is therefore surprised that in paragraph 1 of the submissions [NAME_47] is criticised contending that she "lay accusations against the Applicant and his representative [NAME_58] often without any verification whatsoever". When asked questions by [NAME_40] (meant to elicit that [NAME_46] had resigned as management agents because they were not efficient managers) [NAME_47] told the Tribunal that the real reason for the resignation was that [NAME_40] had acted in a threatening manner and had been difficult to deal with. This happened on one occasion and would not have happened at all if [NAME_40] had not asked a challenging question that brought about the answer.

125. In paragraph 2 of the submissions, the Applicant refers to "clearly biased comments made against the Applicant and his father by Judge Tonge. One of which Judge Tonge deeply apologised for...". At the start of day 3 of the hearing there was an application for recusal on the basis that Judge Tonge had made one potentially biased comment at the end of day 2 of the hearing. This was dealt with by submissions from both parties and a refusal to recuse on the basis that there was no bias. Judge Tonge did not apologise

24

for making a biased comment, he apologised because he was told that the comment had upset the Applicant and [NAME_40]. Judge Tonge had not intended to cause any such upset. The Tribunal further notes that the impromptu comment made by Judge Tonge was made in a hearing room in which all 6 persons present were already aware of the history to the case and most of the complaints that had been made by the Applicant and his father.

126. In paragraph 3 of the submissions the Applicant complains that he has been unfairly denied access to Bank Statements. This is not correct, the Tribunal having been informed that the Bank statements contain confidential information had to balance the competing interests of the Parties. At the Direction of the Tribunal those Bank Statements were brought to the Tribunal room. The issue was again considered by the full Tribunal and a Direction made that the situation would be monitored by the Tribunal and that if circumstances arose that the Tribunal considered were such as to require production of part of those Bank Statements, then that would happen. Such circumstances did not arise.

127. In Paragraph 4 of the submissions, the Applicant complains that the Tribunal, having allowed the very late statement of [NAME_59] to be admitted into evidence, should not have allowed the Respondents to point out that this statement is from an ex employee who is taking action against the First Respondent for unfair dismissal and may be a disgruntled ex employee. The Tribunal is of the opinion that it was perfectly proper to inform the Tribunal of these circumstances.

128. In paragraph 5 of the submissions, the Applicant suggests that [NAME_15] has misled the Tribunal. This is a serious allegation against a member of the Bar which has no place in a case in which the only issues that the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide are whether a service charge is chargeable and is it reasonable.

129. The Tribunal notes the rest of the submissions and exhibits that have been considered.

130. The Tribunal now turns to consider the matters raised in the [NAME_27] Schedule, but in doing so adopts the method suggested by [NAME_15]. The Tribunal will deal with 15 separate areas of issues, considering each item in that area of issues together. This being much more efficient than starting at [NAME_27] Schedule 1 and going through each item point by point until reaching the end of the schedule. The Tribunal makes amendments to the [NAME_27] Schedule references and invoice numbers as are found to be appropriate.

131. The first head of issues is Security Industry Authority Licences. These licences last for 3 years, at a cost of £240 plus VAT, and are intended to

25

ensure that persons involved in security are fit and proper persons. One of the big features of the site is that it is a gated site with 24 hour security provided by the monitoring of a bank of CCTV monitors in the security office and mobile patrols. Security is necessary for the whole site and is clearly a service charge cost (the lease, fourth schedule, paragraph 6). Was it reasonable for the management company to fund [NAME_82]. licences for their security staff? Was it reasonable to pay for a licence for [NAME_83]?

132. The Applicant contends that it is normal within the security industry for employees to pay for their own licences, but has not adduced any evidence to this effect. The Applicant has adduced evidence to the effect that if employees do so they will receive tax relief on such costs. The Respondents' case is that it is reasonable to fund these licences for staff who must have them and are not well paid. [NAME_40] asked questions about the fact although there is mention in the Respondents' case of an S.

I. A. inspection, the S.

I. A. report following the inspection has not been included in the evidence. As a result the [NAME_82]. report has been served in additional evidence.

133. The S. I. A. report, dated 19 July 2011 (Respondents' additional evidence, page 1 and 2) is in fact an improvement notice, addressed to [COMPANY_347], [NAME_10]. It points out that the Directors of [COMPANY_223], [COMPANY_85], [COMPANY_313] and all security staff must all have [NAME_82]. licences and that failure to comply might lead to prosecution.

134. The Tribunal accepts that the First Respondent will try to recover the appropriate part of the cost of such a licence if a member of security staff leaves employment there being a term in contracts of employment that provides for this (Respondents' volume D, 307).

135. [NAME_40] asked about alternative methods of providing security from outside providers, [NAME_47] said that quotes had been obtained, but because of VAT considerations this had not been cost effective.

136. The Tribunal has considered invoices and email (Respondents' volume E 225, part of which relates to [NAME_87], F 600 and G1108) and determines that it is perfectly reasonable for security staff to have their S. I. A. licences purchased for them in this manner.

137. In relation to [NAME_83] (Respondents' volume E, 225) the Tribunal accepts that there was an expectation that she would become a Director of [COMPANY_22] and as such would need to have an S.

I. A. licence (although it transpires that the appointment was not made). In any event the Tribunal accepts that [NAME_88] was a key holder, line manager and supervisor of security staff and therefore needed to have a licence. [NAME_88] was somewhat better paid than the

26

security officers, so slightly different considerations apply, but again the Tribunal determines that it was a service charge cost and that it was reasonable to do this.

138. This determines [NAME_27] Schedule points 1, 2, 70 and 227. All these amounts are chargeable under the terms of the lease and are charged at a reasonable level, being payments for licences.

139. The Tribunal now deals with the second head of issues, [COMPANY_49]. The Applicant contends that certain services are being provided by security staff to [COMPANY_49] free of charge. These services are dealing with the sale of utility cards that result in boat users being able to use electricity and water supplied by [COMPANY_49]. The Applicant estimates that over the four years that the Tribunal is concerned with a total 0f £55,750 should be recovered from [COMPANY_49], thus reducing the service charges cost to the Applicant by a proportion of that amount. In simple terms the Tribunal should reduce the service charges cost to the Applicant by his share of that amount. The Tribunal takes into account the statement of [NAME_345] who confirms that some time is expended by security staff in this regard. The Tribunal notes that there no time sheets served that might assist the Tribunal to ascertain how long is actually spent by security staff on this type of work. In any event a member of security has to remain in the security office to monitor security cameras.

140. The Respondents accept that the security staff will be required to act in this way when the [NAME_51] office is shut, outside normal office hours. The Respondents dispute the amount of time spent on this service, but in any event it is their case that the apportionment calculations made by [NAME_57] results in a payment from [COMPANY_49] into the service charge account of the management company. This is currently £17,077.52 plus VAT. The Tribunal is referred to one of the apportionment documents within the Respondents' bundle that establishes the percentage of contribution to be made by [COMPANY_49] in 2017 as 3.8% and in 2018 as 3.75% (Respondents' volume E, 2). The same document reveals other percentage charge contributions from other contributors.

141. The Tribunal is satisfied that these claims contained in the [NAME_27] Schedule at item 4 and 6 (6 relating to companies benefiting from security generally) have been brought without the Applicant realising that contributions are being made by both [COMPANY_49] and [COMPANY_14] (as calculated to be appropriate by [NAME_57]) towards the service charge account that effects the Applicant. As such the Tribunal determines that the Applicant's suggestion that services are being provided to these companies free of charge is not correct. The Tribunal

27

determines that no adjustment should be made to the Applicant's service charge account.

142. This head of issues is extended to consider specific invoices: • [NAME_27] Schedule 8, invoice (Respondents' volume E, 229) • [NAME_27] Schedule 9, invoice (Respondents' volume E, 230 and 231) • [NAME_27] Schedule 10, 11 and 12, invoice (Respondents' volume E, 232 and 233, E234 and E235, E 233) • [NAME_27] Schedule 54, invoice (Respondents' volume F, 519) • [NAME_27] Schedule 144, invoice (Respondents' volume G, 836) • [NAME_27] Schedule 56, invoice (Respondents' volume F,527) • [NAME_27] Schedule 210, invoice (Respondents' volume G, 1104) • [NAME_27] Schedule 260, invoice (Respondents' volume G, 1184)

143. In relation to all of these invoices the Applicant alleges that his service charge account has been charged for works that should have been charged to [COMPANY_49] or [COMPANY_14].

144. The Respondents' agree that some of these charges are not charges that are relevant to the calculation of service charges in so far as the Applicant is concerned, where this is the case they have not been charged to the Applicant's service charge account. They have been recharged to the appropriate company.

145. The Tribunal has considered each invoice and can see that [NAME_27] Schedule 8, invoice E229 is a recharge to [COMPANY_49], although it should have been a recharge to [COMPANY_14], it being the installation of a security barrier and therefore a development cost. [NAME_27] Schedule 9, invoice 231 is a recharge of invoice 230. [NAME_27] Schedule 10, invoice E233 is a recharge of E232. [NAME_27] Schedule 11, invoices E235 and E234 are the same invoice slightly reworded and relate to an access gate that is left open during normal working hours , but is fob controlled after that. It is a common area. [NAME_27] Schedule 12, E233 is a recharge of E232 and has already been dealt with in [NAME_27] Schedule 10. [NAME_27] Schedule 54, F519 is an invoice paid by the management company and F520 is that same amount being recharged to [COMPANY_49], there being no charge to the Applicant's service charge account. [NAME_27] Schedule 144, G836 is an invoice paid by the management company and G837 is that same amount being recharged to [COMPANY_49], there being no charge to the Applicant's service charge account.

146. Also included in this head of issues are three [NAME_27] Schedule points (56 (a) to (p), 210 (a)-(p) and 260 (a)-(m) in which the Applicant challenges work done by the management companies landscaping staff, being items of work outside the usual scope of the service that they provide and then

28

charged on an ad hoc basis and paid for by [NAME_48] or [NAME_89]. There is no issue as to the fact that these two companies have paid for the work done as invoiced, but the Applicant argues that the work has not been invoiced at a proper level. The Applicant does not adduce any evidence as to what that proper level might be. The Respondents' counter submission is that the hourly fee charged has been properly worked out by averaging the hourly pay of their four staff, any one of whom might be required to undertake the work, when they have time to do so. It is a competitive price, if it were not the customer companies would go elsewhere, but this brings money into the service charge account, reducing the charge demanded from the Applicant. The Tribunal determines that it is reasonable for staff to be used in this way, reducing the service charge cost to the Applicant.

147. The third head of issues, security staff, CCTV, gates, etc. This head covers 35 [NAME_27] Schedule points:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 3, 228 and 230, relating to key fobs, invoice G1109. b) [NAME_27] Schedule 19, CCTV repairs, various invoices and documents, E347 and 15 others. c) [NAME_27] Schedule 22, fitness policy, invoice E384. d) [NAME_27] Schedule 24, mobile security by [NAME_90], various invoices including E399. e) [NAME_27] Schedule 87, mobile security by [NAME_90], invoice F647. f) [NAME_27] Schedule 72, [NAME_91], invoice F603. g) [NAME_27] Schedule 75, [NAME_92] maintenance fee, invoice F607. h) [NAME_27] Schedule 77, Relocation of camera, invoice F611. i) [NAME_27] Schedule 78, supply new camera, invoice F612. j) [NAME_27] Schedule 81, two joysticks for CCTV, invoice F616 and F617. k) [NAME_27] Schedule 147, [NAME_92] maintenance fee, invoice G864. l) [NAME_27] Schedule 150, repair to Quay's main gate, invoice G867. m) [NAME_27] Schedule 152, install new number plate recognition system, G869. n) [NAME_27] Schedule 153, various gate repairs, invoice G870 and G875. o) [NAME_27] Schedule 156, [NAME_92] maintenance fee, invoice G877. p) [NAME_27] Schedule 157, lay ducting for CCTV, invoice G879. q) [NAME_27] Schedule 158, relocation/addition of new camera due to tree obstruction, G880. r) [NAME_27] Schedule 159, upgrade CCTV, invoice G883, G884, G885, G886. s) [NAME_27] Schedule 165, [NAME_93], invoice G901. t) [NAME_27] Schedule 192, security lighting, invoice G972. u) [NAME_27] Schedule 193, security lighting, invoice G973. v) [NAME_27] Schedule 194, security lighting, invoice G974. w) [NAME_27] Schedule 195, security lighting, invoice G975. x) [NAME_27] Schedule 231, replace microphone and receiver, invoice G1112. y) [NAME_27] Schedule 233, car damages gate, invoice G1114. z) [NAME_27] Schedule 234, car damages gate, invoice G1115. aa) [NAME_27] Schedule 235, [NAME_92] maintenance fee, invoice G1117.

29

bb) [NAME_27] Schedule 239, security contractors, invoice G1140. cc) [NAME_27] Schedule 240, accommodation for security guard, invoice G1148. dd) [NAME_27] Schedule 18 and 74, gate repair, invoice E243. ee) [NAME_27] Schedule 155, renewal of access control system, G876. ff) [NAME_27] Schedule 273, lighting plan for security, G1210.

148. Item a) above deals with a challenge to the way that key fobs are issued on the site. The fobs are required for access through security gates. They cost the site £3.50 plus VAT. They are issued either at no cost, for the first issue or at a replacement cost of £24. Fees are refunded when replacements are returned. The Tribunal accepts the evidence on behalf of the Respondents that an inflated charge is used to encourage residents not to ask for replacement fobs. If any profit is made it is paid into the service charge account, reducing the Applicant's service charges. The Tribunal determines that this is a reasonable method of dealing with fobs.

149. [NAME_27] Schedule 3 contains an allegation of improper conduct on the part of [NAME_79], the details of which the Tribunal will not repeat. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's witness [NAME_94] gives a detailed account of the issue of fobs and the only persons involved, other than security staff, are [NAME_66], arranging payment from residents and [NAME_47] collecting the money paid by persons mooring boats. The allegation made against [NAME_79] is completely without foundation or supporting evidence and the Tribunal determines that it should not have been made. The Applicant also requests that an audit of the fobs take place. The Tribunal determines that this is a matter for management to decide upon and is not a challenge to a service charge cost.

150. Item a), above also contains two other [NAME_27] Schedule points. [NAME_27] Schedule 228 asks for an explanation relating to different types of fob and the explanation is provided. [NAME_27] Schedule 230 asks for a further explanation and it is given. These do not appear to challenge service charge costs. In any event the Tribunal makes it clear that it determines that the method of dealing with fobs on the site is reasonable.

151. Item b), above. Security costs are chargeable pursuant to the lease, fourth schedule paragraph 7. The Applicant suggests that the invoices for repairs and updating of the CCTV system are excessive. The Respondents go through each invoice pointing out that the CCTV system is a complicated system, having grown with the site, it has required investment in new and improved installations. It must be maintained and repaired. The Tribunal has gone through all the documents referred to and determines that the £11,500 spent is a reasonable service charge cost.

152. Item c), above challenges the cost of an invoice from [NAME_181] for the drafting of a policy regulating the introduction of fitness tests for [NAME_96], dated 9 January 2015. The Applicant

30

points out that it is his belief that the security officers have been told not to chase anyone and asks why this was necessary. The Tribunal notes that the witness [NAME_59] was a security officer for 19 months and he does not confirm that he had been told not to chase anyone. That aside, the witness describes duties that require a certain level of fitness. The Tribunal determines that it is reasonable for a fitness test to be required and that since this invoice relates to drafting a policy with that in mind it is reasonable for the First respondent to obtain legal advice and a professionally drafted policy. The Tribunal determines that these costs can be charged as a service charge cost and that they are reasonable.

153. Item d) and e) and s) above. The Applicant challenges the invoices from [NAME_97] that relate to the provision of additional mobile security when cover is needed because of the absence of an employee. The disputed amounts are £132, £3,396.90 and £3,469.40 (the last figure including the 10 invoices as referred to on the [NAME_27] Schedule and including G901). The Applicant asks if this firm is value for money? The Respondents contend that the firm is value for money, being far cheaper than employing additional staff to cover absences. The Tribunal determines that these are reasonable costs, being a reasonable method of covering staff absences.

154. Item f), above. Invoice cost £11,960. The invoice details the work done. The Applicant suggests that he could have had the work done for £3,000, but does not provide any alternative quote for the Tribunal to consider. [NAME_47] states that she did try to obtain alternative quotes, but the other two firms approached did not tender for the work. This firm came with a recommendation. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge cost and that it is within the scale of reasonable charges for this type of work.

155. Item g), k), o) and aa). The first two relate to the annual fee for maintenance inspections to intercom, access control, traffic barriers and automatic gates. The second two relate to the CCTV annual maintenance contract. The Applicant's challenge disputes the whole amount of £1,440 (first 2 invoices) and £996 (second two invoices). The Respondents had used [NAME_99], but they did not provide a good enough service so the Respondents then chose to use [NAME_92] as they provide a good service and have built up an intimate knowledge of the complicated security systems on the site. The Respondents also contend that [NAME_92] are cost effective and that when they were chosen other alternative providers were considered. The Tribunal determines that these are service charge costs and are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

156. Item h), above. The invoice is for £2,892 from [NAME_92] having relocated a security camera. The invoice is detailed, setting out what had to be done. The Tribunal determines that these service charge costs that are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

31

157. Item i), above. The 2 page invoice from [NAME_92] details the work that had be done. All security cameras are located in common areas. The monies had been accrued in 2015, when there would have been a service charge cost of £3,480, but the work was completed in 2016. The Tribunal determines that these are service charge costs and charges are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

158. Item j), above. There are two invoices for the same joy stick for control of CCTV cameras. The first is to replace a pre-existing joy stick that had failed. The second was needed after a member of staff fainted and broke the first. Both invoices are for supply and fitting of the joy stick at £408.14. The Tribunal determines that these are service charge costs and that the charges are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

159. Item l), above. The challenge to the whole amount of £646.92 is on the basis that there had already been a repair to this gate 5 months earlier, challenging the reasonableness of the cost. The Respondents' case is that the gate needed further repair. The Tribunal determines that these charges are service charge costs and are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

160. Item m), above. The cost of £8,607.42 for installing a number plate recognition system to supplement the existing camera (the Tribunal notes that on many occasions the existing camera has failed to obtain a clear registration number), with a view to identifying persons who damage the gate. The cost is challenged on the basis that there were no alternative quotes obtained. The Respondents' point out that they prefer to instruct [NAME_92] for reasons already stated. The Tribunal determines that these charges are service charge costs that are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

161. Item n), above. Two invoices from [NAME_92] for various items of work to gates within the site. These are considered to be a service charge cost because all residents benefit from the gates being accessible and being operative. The combined cost is £288. The Tribunal determines that these charges are service charge costs that are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

162. Item p) and q), above. These two invoices relate to the same project. G879 is £5,340, charged by [COMPANY_101] for the preparatory work of laying ducting for the new camera and concreting the camera posts. G880 (two pages) is £7,560 charged by [NAME_92] for the remainder of the work needed and is a very detailed invoice. The Respondents' state that this was necessary as the pre-existing camera could no longer fulfil its purpose due to the growth of trees now causing an obstruction to the camera. The Applicant challenges the cost as being unreasonable. The Tribunal having visited the site and observed these cameras agrees with the

32

Respondents that this work was necessary. The Tribunal determines that these charges are service charge costs that are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

163. Item r), above. Four invoices for the supply of cameras to common areas around the site, by [NAME_92] for a total value of £4,410. Replacing cameras that were at the end of their useful life, with modern more advanced cameras. Alternative quotes requested by the Applicant, but at the same time the Applicant does not advance any alternative quotes. The Respondents did not obtain any alternative quotes, for the reasons already stated, above. The Tribunal accepts that this work is necessary to continue the high standard of security monitoring. The Tribunal determines that these charges are service charge costs that are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

164. Item t), u), v) and w) are all invoices that relate to lights that are needed to make sure that CCTV can properly monitor the site during the night and to light the site generally. The Applicant suggest that some of the work may be under warranty, some may be for other companies sharing the site and points to the lack of quotes, whilst not advancing any quotes himself. These are invoices from [COMPANY_103]. They are to a total value of £4,955.88. Invoice G972 includes the security light at the lock gates inspected by the Tribunal. This light is activated when a boat passes it at night. The Tribunal determines that this is an essential security feature, without which the whole site would be at risk from trespassers, entering the site by means of a boat at night, without the knowledge of the duty security team. Where items are under warranty they have not been repaired as a service charge cost, see invoice G973. The Tribunal determines that these lights have to work for the purpose of CCTV at night and that they are either the First Respondent’s sole responsibility or covered by apportioned contributions to the service charge account. As such all the invoices are service charge costs. The Tribunal determines that these charges are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

165. Item x), above. This is the replacement of a microphone and receiver on a security gate so that residents attempting to access the gate may contact the security office if they need to do so. This is clearly a service charge expense and is charged at a reasonable level.

166. Item y) and z), above. These are invoices for repairs to a security gate, damaged by vehicles being driven negligently. The Tribunal accepts the evidence given on behalf of the First Respondent, that where a driver can be traced he is required to pay for the damage. Further there is insurance covering this type of damage, but that the excess is £500. Item y) is a crash in which the CCTV did not capture the registration of the vehicle involved and the whole amount of the repair is payable as a service charge cost. Item z) is a crash in which a claim is being made through the insurance company

33

for part of the cost of repairs. The Invoice has been paid and is a service charge cost, but some may be recovered from the insurance company. The Tribunal determines that the repair invoices are chargeable as service charge costs and are reasonable.

167. Item bb), above. This invoice relates to mobile security patrols now being provided by [NAME_106], replacing [NAME_93]. This invoice for £408.10 is for 8 visits during 2018, to cover security staff absence in the same way that [NAME_90] used to fill those gaps. This is clearly a service charge expense and is reasonable.

168. Item cc), above. This is an invoice that pays for an overnight stay in the site for a security guard who could not get home because of a snow fall. The £60 is clearly a service charge expense and is reasonable.

169. Item dd), above. This two page invoice E242 and E243 is a quote for the cost of work to be done in the future to [NAME_107], dated 13 November 2015. The work was actually done in 2016 and is the subject of [NAME_27] Schedule 74, invoice F605 and F606 when the cost of £6,067.39 was paid. [NAME_107] is a gate which is open during the day, but the staff of the First Respondent have access when it is shut, so that they can access the security office and grounds store. This is a service charge cost and it is reasonable.

170. Item ee), above. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of [NAME_47] that this is the second page of a quote for repairs to be carried out in the future to [NAME_52] pedestrian gate access control system. When this work was actually carried out it would be a service charge expense and would be charged at a reasonable level.

171. Item ff), above. An invoice for £196.68 to pay an architect to produce an up to date plan of the site to show the position of lights and security equipment. The First Respondent clearly thought that this would assist in good management of the site. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge expense and that it is charged at a reasonable level.

172. The Tribunal now moves to consider the fourth head of issues, gardening maintenance. This head of issues contains 16 [NAME_27] Schedule points:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 38, equipment, F455, 456, 462, 465, 467, 469, 471, etc b) [NAME_27] Schedule 42 and 248, Ace mechanical digger, F494 and G1165 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 45, [NAME_104], cherry picker and lighting, F497-504 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 48, new tractor, F510 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 50, petrol mower, F513 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 105, [NAME_104], replace bollards, F703 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 108, [NAME_102], compost bays, F706 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 112, [NAME_104], defective lights, F710 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 117, [NAME_104], cherry picker, lighting , F716

34

j) [NAME_27] Schedule 130, [NAME_108], tree works, F129 k) [NAME_27] Schedule 202, additional van, G983 l) [NAME_27] Schedule 208, tree felling, G991 m) [NAME_27] Schedule 212, driving lessons, G1071 n) [NAME_27] Schedule 262, training course, G1200 o) [NAME_27] Schedule 266, [NAME_104], cherry picker, lighting, G1204

173. Item a) and e), above. These are items of garden equipment bought from [NAME_109]. The Applicant contends that [NAME_109] is more expensive than other suppliers, but does not adduce any evidence to this effect, nor does this take into account the quality and durability of the garden equipment purchased. The First Respondent indicates that in the past they have bought from other suppliers, but have been disappointed with that equipment. Further, [NAME_109] were willing to advance credit, an advantage that has to be weighed in the decision of whom to purchase from. The Tribunal determines that purchasing from [NAME_109] is reasonable. These are service charge expense and they are charged at a reasonable level.

174. Item b), above. [NAME_110] invoice for £240 to clean out compost bins (2015) and £996 to clean them out twice more, plus laying some stone on the track to the bins (2017). The Applicant asks, why is this firm being used for this purpose? Further, he has no recollection of stone being laid. The First Respondent states that [NAME_110] have a mechanical digger, which is used to empty out the compost bays when residents have put non-compostable rubbish into the bays. The Tribunal inspected these bays during the inspection, they are in a remote part of the site, up a long stone covered track that appeared to be in good condition. The bays are open top, open fronted and wide. It would be very easy for residents that wish to do so to act in this way. The use of a mechanical digger would reduce the time spent on emptying the bays, reducing labour times. The fact that the Applicant does not think that stone was laid as per the invoice does not mean that the invoice is incorrect. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the First Respondent, supported by the invoices and concludes that the work as invoiced was carried out. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge expense and that it is charged at a reasonable level.

175. Item c), f), h), i) and 0), above. All of these items involve [NAME_104] in repairing lights or replacing light bulbs or replacing road bollards (the bollards being 15 years old when replaced) in common areas on the site. There are numerous invoices that are detailed as to the work done and there are some work sheets. The First Respondent states that this firm has a cherry picker that is essential for reaching lights on lamp posts as health and safety rules will not permit the use of a ladder. The First Respondent has considered buying a cherry picker, but decided not to do so as this would involve the cost of the vehicle and require additional staff training, additional insurance and additional staff working hours. All work done and

35

put through the service charge account is properly dealt with, the Applicant has not been charged for work that he should not have been required to contribute to. The First Respondent also points out that security staff make a note of the lamps that need to be changed or repaired and that [NAME_337] are only called to attend when there is sufficient work to make the visit cost effective.

176. During the site inspection the Tribunal noted that the site has a great many street lamps that will require a cherry picker when the bulbs are to be replaced. The main roundabout in question is at the entrance to the site, just off the A57 and has four bollards, one on each approach road to it. The Tribunal determines that the work done in these invoices and charged to the Applicant's service charge account is all work that can be charged to this account and is all carried out within a scale of costs that are reasonable.

177. Item d), above. This is an invoice for the purchase of a [NAME_111] tractor for use of the grounds staff on the site. The Applicant states that he could have obtained this tractor at the time that it was purchased at a cost of £1,700 less than the invoice price of £13,824, but the Applicant does not adduce any evidence to substantiate this. The First Respondent answers this on the basis that only this make and model of tractor would permit the fittings already in the grounds staff store to be used. That the tractor was supplied along with a further fitting, a cutter deck that was needed and that there was a significant trade in deal done resulting in a credit note of £8,400 being issued (E310).

178. The Tribunal accepts the fact that trade in deals are never straight forward, sometimes a higher starting price is compensated for by a higher trade in price. The Tribunal determines that this purchase is a service charge cost and that the purchase was concluded in a cost effective manner, such that the cost is reasonable.

179. Item g), above. This is an invoice from [COMPANY_101] for £5,850, to cover the cost of emptying the compost bays and replacing them. The Applicant contends that this is a manifestly excessive cost, specifying that the Respondents' permitted themselves to be overcharged by this contractor to the sum of £3,245. The Applicant does not adduce any evidence to support this view and does not provide any alternative quotes. The Tribunal inspected these compost bays, there are 6 substantial bays. [NAME_40] stated that he had asked a builder by the name of [NAME_112] to inspect the bays and had been told that [NAME_113] could have done the same work for £1,500 each bay. If that is correct then [COMPANY_101] did the work cheaper than [NAME_113] would have been able to do it (6 x £1,500 is £9,000). In any event the Tribunal gave [NAME_58] the opportunity to provide evidence from [NAME_113] on this point, but he did not do so. The Tribunal determines that the this work is chargeable as a

36

service charge cost and that the cost is within the scale of costs that are reasonable for this work.

180. Item j), above, to which the Tribunal adds [NAME_27] Schedule 55 that is clearly objected to on the same point. The Applicant asking why skips are being paid for? There are numerous invoices for the provision of skips from [NAME_114] at a cost of £200 per skip e.g. F447. The Respondents' state that these are hired so that non-compostable waste can be put into them by the grounds staff and disposed of, without going into the compost bays. The Tribunal determines that these are service charge costs and that they are charged within a scale of reasonable costs.

181. Item k), above. This is an invoice for the purchase on a Nissan van, from [NAME_115] at a cost of £7,200. Considering the dates provided on the invoice it would appear that the van was less than 4 years old when purchased. The Applicant asks why this was purchased? The Respondents' state that it is an additional vehicle for the use of the grounds staff who have a huge area to cover and this vehicle makes them more mobile. A van was needed to accommodate tools and mowing machines. The Tribunal determines that this purchase is a service charge cost and that the purchase cost is reasonable.

182. Item l), above. There are in fact three invoices from [NAME_116], [COMPANY_340], for felling, pruning and general tree work on the site, G991, 992, 993. The challenge to these invoices is that they are addressed to [NAME_46], who are management agents appointed by the management company and not addressed to the First Respondent itself. The Tribunal determines that as agents for the First Respondent it is perfectly proper for [NAME_46] to act in this way. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal determines that this purchase is a service charge cost and that the invoices are charged within the scale of reasonable charges.

183. Item m) and n), above. These are the cost of driving licence theory test for an apprentice gardener and the cost of a training course for a member of grounds staff. The first invoice was paid for as a reward for apprentice completing his apprenticeship and although the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that holding a driving licence is not a condition of employment the Tribunal determines that it would be advantageous for the First Respondent if this employee could drive around the site. Further, the Tribunal determines that it is reasonable to reward an apprentice in these circumstances with a reward that will also provide a potential benefit to the site. The second invoice is sent to [NAME_46], rather than the management company and again the Tribunal determines that this does not matter in so far as chargeability and reasonableness is concerned. It paid for a member of staff to attend college. The Tribunal determines that these costs are service charge costs and that the costs are reasonable.

37

184. The Tribunal now moves to the fifth head of issues, disputed location of work being done. This covers 22 items on the [NAME_27] Schedule: a) [NAME_27] Schedule 16, work on [NAME_107], E240. b) [NAME_27] Schedule 17, work on [NAME_107], E241. c) [NAME_27] Schedule 37 and 40, deep water signs and high visibility coats, F453 and F492. d) [NAME_27] Schedule 43, fence repair, F495. e) [NAME_27] Schedule 46 and 203, repair water pump, F505 etc. f) [NAME_27] Schedule 47, 118, 2oo, 205, work on Parker's drain, F509, 726, G980 and G987. g) [NAME_27] Schedule 76, damage to [NAME_107], F608. h) [NAME_27] Schedule 100, flags, F689. i) [NAME_27] Schedule 115, repair to light at mooring gate 3, F714. j) [NAME_27] Schedule 119, repair water pump, F727. k) [NAME_27] Schedule 127, landscaping, F591. l) [NAME_27] Schedule 128, supply of plants, F 593. m) [NAME_27] Schedule 151, repair to pontoon gate, G686. n) [NAME_27] Schedule 189, benches, G962. o) [NAME_27] Schedule 211, signs, G1070. p) [NAME_27] Schedule 229, gate repair, G1110. q) [NAME_27] Schedule 258, to sink posts, G1178.

185. This head of issues all refer to the Applicant alleging that work has been done at locations that are not within the common areas of the site and that as a result are not charges that can be considered when calculating the Applicant's service charge costs. The First Respondent states that this is not correct. All works that are charged to the service charge account are on items in common areas. The First Respondent has produced a detailed A1 size plan of the site and for each year under consideration in this case, has marked a different copy of that plan with a reference number allotted to the work done in each [NAME_27] Schedule claim. It is necessary to read the [NAME_27] Schedule to ascertain the correct map reference number to use, e.g. [NAME_107], [NAME_27] Schedule 16 and 17 are both at map reference 11. [NAME_27] Schedule 37 and 40 are both at map reference 37 and so on. The plans also show which areas are common areas.

186. The Tribunal went through these [NAME_27] Schedule points in the hearing (although separately as we worked through the [NAME_27] Schedule in numerical order at [NAME_40]'s request). The Tribunal considers the [NAME_27] Schedule and the plans with map references marked, supported by the evidence of [NAME_47], who stated that all lamp post (except those at the health club and [NAME_118]) are the responsibility of the First Respondent to maintain. The Tribunal determines that the above items, in paragraph 184 are all in common areas within the site and as such they are all capable (where any charge has been claimed) of being charged to the Applicant's service charge account. They are reasonable charges.

38

187. The Tribunal therefore determines that items a), b), g), h), i), k), l), and m), above, are all service charge costs that are reasonable.

188. Item c), above. The Tribunal saw and noted the position of 4 such signs, 3 at the request of [NAME_40]. All were on the bank side of quay's, we did not see any such signs in the water. It was a hot, bright day and high visibility clothing was not in use but there were a number of high visibility over garments in the grounds mans area. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge cost, charged at a reasonable level.

189. Item d), above. [NAME_27] Schedule 43 was withdrawn.

190. Item e), f) and j), above. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of [NAME_47] that these pumps and parker's drain are vital as they assist in keeping the site from flooding as a result of storm rain water. The pumps often being referred to as storm pumps. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge cost, charged at a reasonable level.

191. Item n), above. The Tribunal observed some of the benches that have not yet been replaced. They are a very distinctive design with a wavy seat, but they are made out of metal that is clearly prone to rust and for a 'flag ship' site like this, rusting benches are out of keeping with the rest of the site. The Tribunal determines that replacement of rusting benches is a service charge cost, charged at a reasonable level.

192. The Tribunal accepts [NAME_47]' evidence to the effect that item 0) was an accrual not charged as a service charge cost on that invoice.

193. Item q), above. The Tribunal observed a length of road in the site where these wooden posts had been sunk into the grass at regular intervals along the side of the road, the road surface being marked with double yellow lines. There were competing suggestions as to why this was done and the Tribunal determines that the posts were sunk into the grass to prevent persons from parking with their tyres on the grass and thereby causing an obstruction to the carriageway, in an area already marked with a parking restriction.

194. The Tribunal determines that all the invoices relating to the above items of work have been charged at a reasonable level.

195. The Tribunal now moves to consider the sixth head of issues, where the Applicant alleges that the location in which work has been done has not yet been 'handed over' to [COMPANY_8] and is therefore not to be included is service charge costs.

196. There are 8 [NAME_27] Schedule issues in this head of issues:

39

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 13, gate into quay's, E236 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 71, gate into quay's, F602 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 73, gate into quay's, F604 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 116, lamp post near sales office, F715 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 145, gate into quay's, G862 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 148, repair to gate into quay's, G865 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 264, repairs to lights, G1202 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 265, repairs to lights, G1203

197. The Respondents submit that the distinction being drawn by the Applicant is contrary to the provisions of the lease. The Tribunal, having heard the competing submissions of the Parties and having considered the terms of the lease agrees with the Respondents. Service charges are to be paid for the common areas of the site and once the lessees benefit from a service provided in a common area, even though development of the whole area may still not be completed, then it becomes a service charge cost (see relevant provisions of the lease, above). The Tribunal's example as referred to above is a good guide, erecting a lamp post in a common area is a development cost, there may be snagging issues which would still be a development cost, but once switched on and working properly, repair would be a service charge cost.

198. The Tribunal determines that the distinction being drawn by the Applicant is incorrect, whether a part of the site has been fully developed and 'handed over' is not a relevant consideration to liability to pay service charges.

199. Item a), above. The Respondents, concede that this invoice for £81.90 has been incorrectly charged to the Applicant's service charge account and is dated 23/6/2015. As such the percentage multiplier for the Applicant's service charge contribution was 0.2205% (paragraph 6, above). The Applicant is therefore entitled to a refund to his service charge account of £81.90 x 0.2205% = 18 pence.

200. The Tribunal has considered all the remaining invoices in this head of issues and confirms they all repairs to items that appear to be in common areas and as such they are chargeable as service charge costs to the Applicant's service charge account. The Tribunal determines that all the invoices relating to the above items of work have been charged at a reasonable level.

201. The Tribunal now considers the seventh head of issues, being entitled by [NAME_15], queried invoice - speculative opposition.

202. There are 35 [NAME_27] Schedule points in this head of issues:

40

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 15, wireless connection for security, E238 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 44, waste bin, F469 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 49, bike shelters, F511 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 55, skip hire, F521 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 58, sign repair, F547 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 67, ICO fee, F557 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 93, water heater, F666 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 106, re-line road markings, F704 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 109, compost signs, F707 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 111, [NAME_119], F709 k) [NAME_27] Schedule 114, 5 benches, F713 l) [NAME_27] Schedule 120, second hand tipper van, F729 m) [NAME_27] Schedule 121, hedge trimmer, F730 n) [NAME_27] Schedule 123, pressure washer, F732 o) [NAME_27] Schedule 140, car removal, F813 p) [NAME_27] Schedule 142, ICO, F817 q) [NAME_27] Schedule 146, crash into gates, G863 r) [NAME_27] Schedule 175, painting security office, G936 s) [NAME_27] Schedule 182, [COMPANY_71] recharge, G956 t) [NAME_27] Schedule 184 and 185, flags and ropes, to flag poles, G958 u) [NAME_27] Schedule 191, [NAME_120] (G969), [NAME_119] (G970), [NAME_121] (G971) v) [NAME_27] Schedule 196, lighting, G976 w) [NAME_27] Schedule 197, 198 and 199, [NAME_123] wash contribution, G977 x) [NAME_27] Schedule 209, skip hire, G994 y) [NAME_27] Schedule 247, bus shelter, G1164 z) [NAME_27] Schedule 249, painting 36 lampposts, G1166 aa) [NAME_27] Schedule 250, line markings, G1167 bb) [NAME_27] Schedule 259, skip hire, G1179 to G1183 cc) [NAME_27] Schedule 267, lighting, G1205 dd) [NAME_27] Schedule 7, visitor causing damage to barrier, E228 ee) [NAME_27] Schedule 276, fee for accountant, G1212

203. [NAME_15] is correct to group these [NAME_27] Schedule items together as challenged invoices, however, the Tribunal does not agree with [NAME_15]'s further description of 'speculative opposition'. The Tribunal deals with these points in the same way as it deals with all points on the [NAME_27] Schedule.

204. Item a), above. E238 is an invoice for work done by [NAME_92] to replace a wireless system that was not functioning correctly with a wired connection for an access control system, which after it had been modified worked better. The detailed invoice indicates the work that was carried out. The Applicant asks what is the cost for? The question has been answered. The work being required for security of the site is clearly a charge that can be brought into the Applicant's service charge demand and is reasonable. The [NAME_27] Schedule also seeks to challenge invoice E239, but this is clearly

41

marked as a quote in respect of the same work and did not result in a service charge cost.

205. Item b), above. F496 is an invoice for a galvanised steel dog waste bin at £235.79. This was purchased using the [NAME_46] credit card and included the ground pole and fixings so that it could be fitted without any more expenditure. The Applicant suggests that this is 28% more expensive than it should have been, but without producing any evidence to support this opinion. The cost is clearly one that can be charged to the service charge account and is reasonable.

206. Item c), above. This relates to bike shelters paid for by a grant from Lincolnshire County Council. There is no service charge cost.

207. Item d), above. This invoice relates to a skip for non-compostable rubbish, there are many such invoices. The issue has already been dealt with elsewhere in this Decision. It is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

208. Item e), above. This is an invoice from [NAME_124] and clearly states the work done and the location of the signs repaired as a result of the theft of metal lettering from the signs. The Applicant asks what signs were involved? The Tribunal inspected the signs, they are 10 foot high metal signs on either side of the road at the entrance to the site and it is evident that lettering has been replaced. It is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

209. Item f), above. This is a fee of £35 for the renewal of registration of a data controller, expiring on 14/1/2016, required under the Data Protection Act. The Applicant contends that no such registration was required. The Tribunal determines that on the face of E557 renewal of registration was required. It is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

210. Item g), above. The Applicant refers to two separate invoices for work done to the same water heater and suggests that work is being duplicated and that one invoice should not be part of the service charge account. The Respondent explains that this is two separate contractors working on the same item, but completing different repairs that complement each other. Both items of work could not be done by one contractor because different work specialities were involved. A float valve required a plumber and [COMPANY_125] were used. The element required an electrician and [NAME_294] were used. The Tribunal determines that the invoices are service charge costs and are reasonable.

211. Item h), above. An invoice from [COMPANY_126] for £1,803.60 for relining the parking places in the main car park and similar lining at Ellison's Quay, at the site. The Applicant asks where the work was done and that has been explained. It is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

42

212. Item i), above. An invoice from [NAME_124], for £99.62 for supplying two compost bin signs. The Applicant asks where the signs are and the Respondents indicate that they are on the compost bins. It is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

213. Item j), above. An invoice from [COMPANY_127] that indicates that work has been done as per a prior quote, cost £1020. The Applicant asks what the invoice is for and where the work was carried out? The Respondents reply that the work (painting) was carried out to two camera poles, pedestrian gates on [ADDRESS] and a bin on The Landings, giving map references to the site plans to further pin point where the painting was done. A reference is given to F589 which is the original quote, at the same cost. It is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

214. Item k), above. This is an email quote from [COMPANY_128] for the supply of 5 new benches in a similar style to the ones already on site, the originals no longer being available and intended to replace existing benches when needed. The Applicant's request for information has been dealt with. The benches were later purchased, but this is only a quote and as such there was no service charge cost.

215. Item l), above. This is an invoice for a second hand Vauxhall Movano Tipper vehicle for use by the grounds staff, purchased from [COMPANY_342], at a cost of £6,900. The Applicant challenges the decision to buy a second hand vehicle and suggests that maintenance costs will be higher on a second hand vehicle. In cross examination the Applicant asks about the cost of hiring a similar vehicle. The Respondents considered hire but are aware that this vehicle will be handled in such a way, loading and unloading heavy equipment, that will cause damage to the vehicle so that hire was not cost effective as repairs would have to be undertaken at the end of the hire period. The cost of such a vehicle new is in the region of £23,500. Purchase of this vehicle was thought to be the most cost effective manner of supplying an extra vehicle for use by the grounds staff. There has not been any additional expenditure on maintenance. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

216. Item m), above. This is an invoice from [NAME_131] for a hedge trimmer and some grease at £362.86. The Applicant suggests that a similar model could be purchased at £170 (without producing any evidence to support this contention). The Respondents contend that costs on line are checked, but that purchase from a local company ensures that if there are problems with the machine they will be promptly dealt with. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

217. Item n), above. This is a quote for the cost of supply of a pressure washer that is used by both the first Respondent and [NAME_51]. At this stage there

43

was no cost as this is only a quote, but at a later stage the pressure washer was purchased and as can be seen from F732 the cost was to be shared in equal parts with [NAME_51]. This is the medium sized pressure washer which the Tribunal has seen and is clearly well used. The Tribunal determines that this was not a service charge cost at the time that this quote was issued, but that when purchased, it was would be a service charge cost and would be reasonable.

218. Item o), above. This is an invoice for £120 from [NAME_132]. The Applicant seeks an explanation for the invoice. The Respondents state that a Ford Focus S597 SFH was abandoned in the car park of the site. There was a delay in dealing with this as the DVLA had to be contacted. After that the vehicle was removed and this invoice relates to call out and provision of a key to gain access to the vehicle. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

219. Item p), above. This is a fee of £35 for the renewal of registration of a data controller, expiring on 14/1/2017, required under the Data Protection Act. The Applicant contends that the email requiring this payment is dated 7/8/18, however the Tribunal can see that the email is dated 3 December 2016. Further, the Applicant suggests that no such registration was required. The Tribunal determines that on the face of F817, renewal of registration was required. It is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

220. Item q), above. This is an invoice from [NAME_92] for £318.48 for repairs to the main barrier at the site after someone had driven into it. The Applicant contends that the driver responsible should have been made to pay for the damage. The Respondents state that the whole of the number plate of the offending vehicle could not be read. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

221. Item r), above. This is an invoice from [COMPANY_127] for £2,706 and it details the painting done covering labour and materials. The Applicant contends that this cost is extremely expensive. The Tribunal has inspected this office and noted that the entrance stairs are inside a curved exterior wall leading up to the office rooms, this area would have required high walls above stairs to be painted (see inspection above for a full description). The Tribunal also saw that there is a large area to be painted. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

222. Item s), above. This is [COMPANY_71] recharging to the First Respondent of the cost of agricultural drainage rates of £113. This covers the whole site. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

223. Item t), above. These [NAME_27] Schedule items refer to flags and ropes being fitted to the flag pole in the site, at a cost of £300. The Applicant contends that a charitable donation should not have been made to [NAME_133] and

44

asks where the flag pole is? The Tribunal saw the flag pole, roped with three flags during the inspection. The Respondents refer to G958 and G959. The Respondents' state that the cost of materials is detailed on G959, these to be supplied by [NAME_133] who then had members fit the ropes and flags. Previously this has been done by outside contractors, but by allowing [NAME_133] to deal with this a substantial saving of about 50% has been achieved. [NAME_133] has not charged for labour and as such the First Respondent decided to donate £63.57 to [NAME_133]'s funds (G958), in effect to compensate them for their time. The Tribunal considers this to be a wholly reasonable approach to reducing service charge costs. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

224. Item u), above. This [NAME_27] Schedule reference relates to three quotes from [NAME_134] for the provision of double yellow lines, speed roundels and line markings, the work to be done at some point in the future (G968). Also included is G970, [COMPANY_127] and G971, [NAME_295]. These are also quotes for work to be done at some stage in the future. The Tribunal determines that there is no cost to the service charge account as a result of these quotes.

225. Item v), above. This is a recharge of service charge costs from [COMPANY_135] to the First Respondent in respect of 18 light columns that are situated as shown in the plan at exhibit 44 of [NAME_47]'s second statement. These are within the common area of the site and although the service charge cost is being met by the First Respondent, [COMPANY_135] pay a contribution to those service charges. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

226. Item w), above. The Respondents state that G977 is an invoice from [COMPANY_135] to the First Respondent in respect of the largest [NAME_123] washer and a loading ramp (so that the [NAME_123] washer can be loaded onto a vehicle) bought by [COMPANY_135] . These were seen in the Tribunal's inspection. It seeks to charge half the cost of the large [NAME_123] washer and the loading ramp to the First Respondent as both companies use it and had agreed to pay half the purchase price.G978 is the purchase invoice for the [NAME_123] washer. G979 is the invoice for the ramp. The Tribunal accepts the explanation as provided by the Respondents as to why this proportion of the costs were recharged to the First Respondent. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

227. Item x), above. These invoices G994 to G1003 are all for the hire of skips from [NAME_114] at a sum of £200 each in 2017. This is a point that has been dealt with earlier and the Tribunal accepts that the skips are provided for staff of the First Respondent to dispose of non-compostable rubbish. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

45

228. Item y), above. This is an invoice from [NAME_136] for £3,178.80. The Applicant contends that since the invoice is addressed to [NAME_46], it should not be a service charge at all. The Tribunal determines that such an approach is wrong because [NAME_46] are agents of the First Respondent. In any event the Tribunal accepts the explanation given by the First Respondent that this cost was for the provision of a bus shelter the whole cost being met by grants from various organisations as listed by the Respondents'. The Tribunal determines that there is no cost to the service charge account as a result of this invoice.

229. Item z), above. This is an invoice, dated 31 May 2018, from [COMPANY_127] for £2,592 for painting 36 lamp posts and [NAME_137] gates. The Applicant asks which lamp posts were painted and suggests that no such painting was done. The Respondents state that the work was done and paid for. It is not possible now to state exactly which lamp posts were painted as they are painted on a 5 year cycle. The Tribunal has seen a great many lamp posts at the site. They are tall and will require a cherry picker or similar device to permit them to be painted. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents' as there would be no reason to pay for work that had not been done. The Tribunal notes that the lamp posts in question will need repainting in less than 2 years, so looking for freshly painted lamp posts would not have assisted on this point. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge cost and it is reasonable.

230. Item aa), above. This is an invoice from [NAME_138] for relining car parks and installing new markings, labour and materials £2,878. The Applicant makes the same point as to the addressee of the invoice as in [NAME_27] Schedule point 247, already dealt with above (paragraph 228). The Applicant asks where the work was carried out and the Respondents detail the work and where it was done. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge cost and it is reasonable.

231. Item bb), above. These invoices G1179 to G1183 are all for the hire of skips from [NAME_114] at a sum of £220 each in 2018. This is a point that has been dealt with earlier and the Tribunal accepts that the skips are provided for staff of the First Respondent to dispose of non-compostable rubbish. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

232. Item cc), above. This is a recharge of service charge costs from [COMPANY_135] to the First Respondent in respect of 18 light columns that are situated as shown in the plan at exhibit 44 of [NAME_47]'s second statement. These are within the common area of the site and although the service charge cost is being met by the First Respondent, [COMPANY_135] pay a contribution to those service charges. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

46

233. Item dd), above. E228 is an invoice from [NAME_92] for repairs to the main site vehicle access barrier for £284, a collision being caused by ice on the road surface. The Respondents state that they did not have the registration number of the vehicle responsible. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

234. Item ee), above. E1212 is an invoice for an interim accountancy charge (year ending 31 December 2017) from [NAME_333] to the First Respondent, for £2,640 with E1213 being the final additional charge of £1,560 for that year. The Applicant contends that the total cost of £4,200 is £2,000 too expensive, but does not serve any supporting evidence for that proposition. The Tribunal notes that this is a mixed use site of considerable size and complexity in relation to the various entities involved. The Tribunal determines that it is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

235. The Tribunal moves on to consider the eighth head of issues as prepared by [NAME_15], car hire.

236. There are 6 [NAME_27] Schedule points in this head of issues:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 20, Car hire with [NAME_140], E368 to E382 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 83, Car hire with [NAME_140], F624 to F631 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 161, Car hire with [NAME_140], G888 to G897 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 162, vehicle repairs, G898 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 164 , vehicle repairs, G900 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 236, remove logo, apply logo, G1118

237. Item a), b) and c), above. This is the hire of a vehicle for the use of the patrolling security officer on the site, the rental hire charge being £282.44 per month (E368). The Applicant seeks to challenge this hire car contract on the basis that it is too expensive (although no alternative quotes are provided by the Applicant). Further, that two sets of car seat covers should not have been purchased. The Respondents' state that the First respondent was limited to the use of [NAME_140] because they were the only hire car company that was prepared to lease a car to them in the absence of a credit history. The hire agreement commenced before the Applicant purchased the long lease to the property. With regard to the seat covers, they were purchased at £8.34 in January 2015 and again at the same cost in April 2015, because the seat covers had split and were worn and needed replacing. The Tribunal accepts the Respondents evidence and determines that these costs are chargeable as service charge cost and that they are reasonable.

238. Item d) and f). The hire contract continued with an upgrade in September 2017 to a different vehicle. The Applicant challenges the extra cost of hire charges due to upgrade. The Applicant also challenges invoice G898, when the hire company invoiced the cost of repairs to the hire vehicle that was

47

returned when the upgrade occurred at a cost of £485.18 (the invoice details the breakdown of this cost). Further, invoice G1118 is an invoice for £328.21 from [NAME_124] and it relates to the upgrade of vehicle, taking the security logos off the vehicle to be returned and placing new security logos on the upgrade.

239. The Respondents contend that the upgrade vehicle is a hybrid car and as such is cheaper to run so that the small increase in hire charges at 70 pence per month is more than offset by the cheaper running costs. With regard to the return of the first vehicle to the hire company, the management company had the foresight to remove the security logos from the vehicle and pay for them to be placed on the upgraded vehicle by [NAME_124]. By doing this there may has been a saving to the service charge account (as the hire company were not in a position to charge for that work) but [NAME_124] had to be paid for the work that they had done. With regard to invoice G898, the returned vehicle was in a condition that the hire company levied this extra charge. The charge had to be paid. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents. It is clear that all of these charges are such that they are chargeable under the terms of the lease and that they are reasonable.

240. Item e), above. The Tribunal determines this issue in favour of the Applicant. It is more complex than the remainder of the issues under this head and the Tribunal deals with this issue at paragraph 321 of this Decision.

241. The Tribunal moves on to consider the ninth head of issues, insurance. There are 11 [NAME_27] Schedule references in this head of claims.

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 21, motor insurance, E383, £763.38 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 52, commercial insurance, F516, £7,770.92 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 64, [NAME_141], F553, £300 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 125, commercial insurance, £8,024.39 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 163/204, motor insurance x 3 vehicles, G899 and G986, (same invoice) £3,034.94 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 201, additional car, motor insurance, G981, £666.35 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 206, commercial (site) insurance, G998, £8,335.85 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 237/252, motor insurance x 3 vehicles, G1119, £3,515,35 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 257, commercial (site) insurance, G1175, £8,999.57 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 256, commercial (site) insurance, [NAME_142] G1176 £7,953.79

242. The above [NAME_27] Schedule points (mostly) refer to insurance arranged by [NAME_142] or [NAME_143]. The insurance is either for the use of vehicles by the First Respondents' staff or commercial insurance to cover the various potential liabilities involved in the running

48

of the site, cover for CCTV, access control equipment, public liability, etc. Where two [NAME_27] Schedule numbers are allocated to the same invoice that is due to the fact that in error, two [NAME_27] Schedule items refer to the same invoice. The Respondents point out that insurance has been arranged through a professional insurance broker and that the Respondents' are entitled to rely upon the broker to find the best insurance for the needs of the Respondents, that is not necessarily the cheapest insurance available.

243. Further, the Respondents seek to rely upon the learned authors of Commercial and Residential Service Charges (2013)(10-08) "In general terms, the courts have been astute to avoid construing a lease in a way which enables the tenant to scour the market to find a cheaper policy than the one to which they are being asked to contribute and to refuse to pay for the more expensive policy obtained by the landlord".

244. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondents submission that they are entitled to rely upon the expertise of their insurance broker to obtain for them the best insurance cover to deal with their needs. This may not necessarily be the cheapest insurance cover available, there are a great many factors to be considered in deciding what the best insurance cover is and price is only one of them. These insurance costs are clearly service charge costs and they fall within a scale of costs that are reasonable.

245. Point c), above. This does not relate to insurance and it appears to the Tribunal that this has been added to the incorrect head of claims. This relates to an invoice from [NAME_141], for £300, invoice F553. The invoice details the work done by the solicitors regarding advice on the company law rights of tenants and is dated 22 July 2015. The Applicant challenges this invoice on the basis that he contends that this work has already been done by [COMPANY_146] at invoice F552, that invoice relates to the structure and legal standing of the First Respondent.

246. As a result of cross examination by [NAME_58] the witness, [NAME_47] has dealt with these two invoices at pages 10 and 11 of her additional statement. In summary The First Respondent's evidence is to the effect that preliminary advice was sought from the [COMPANY_146]. This lead onto written advice (that is privileged) being obtained from [NAME_141]. It is not a duplication if work, although the preliminary work lead onto the written advice being sought. The Tribunal accepts this evidence. The [NAME_141] invoice is a service charge cost and it was reasonable to pay it.

247. The Tribunal moves on to consider the tenth head of issues, health and safety. This area includes 12 [NAME_27] Schedule items:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 23, [NAME_148] retainer, E387, £2,880

49

b) [NAME_27] Schedule 25, [NAME_149]. report, £94.30 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 85, [NAME_148] retainer, F633, £2,880 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 101, sunscreen, F691, £109.92 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 171, first aid box, G917, £9.83 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 173/242, fire extinguishers, G919/G1150, £294 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 243, [NAME_150] retainer, G928 and G1151, £240 per month h) [NAME_27] Schedule 213/263, gritting, G1072/G1201, £5,086.24 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 214, De-fibrulator pads, G1073, £113.76 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 244, [NAME_151], G1153, £2,400

248. The Respondents state that health and safety at the site has been overseen with the assistance of three specialist contractors during the four years being considered in this case. [COMPANY_349] [item a) and c), above], then [NAME_152] [item g), above] and then [NAME_153] [item j), above]. The Respondents submit that a site of this size requires the assistance of specialists in this field and that the services provided by these firms is essential, being; advice, audits, visits and policies. The Tribunal notes that the third specialist contractor is slightly cheaper than the first two. The Respondents state that part of the cost of these specialist contractors is met by [COMPANY_49], paying 35%. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents who could not possibly be expected to be in charge of health and safety at a [NAME_23] with deep water, motor vehicle access and power tools in use without such specialist assistance. These costs are clearly a service charge costs and are reasonable.

249. Item d), above. This is sun screen provided for staff of the First Respondent who work outdoors. They may help themselves when the need arises. It will help to prevent sun burn. Item e) above is a first aid box, the need for which is obvious. Item f), above, relates to fire extinguishers, which must be provided if the First Respondent is so advised. The Tribunal notes that invoice G1150 that requires payment for 9 extinguishers is endorsed to the effect that 3 of them are to be paid for by the [COMPANY_55] at £98 each and a BACS payment was made. Item i), above is the replacement of de-fibrulator pads after use. All of these costs, allowing for the [NAME_51] payment of £296, are service charge costs and are reasonable.

250. Item b), above. This is the cost of a medical report from the [NAME_149]. of a security staff member who wished to return to work after an operation and the First Respondent wanted to make sure that the employee was in fact fit to work. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents. This is a service charge cost and it was reasonable to pay the [NAME_149]'s. invoice.

251. Item h), above. These costs relate to gritting of the roads on the site. Prior to this the First Respondent had relied on grounds staff to attend to gritting when this was required. This was arranged on an ad-hoc basis. A

50

decision was then taken, accepting health and safety advice, to engage a contractor to attend when required to deal with this work. The Applicant challenges this cost on the basis that the contract that he has seen is partly redacted and is signed by [NAME_47], the Applicant raising the agency point that has been raised and dealt with earlier. The Tribunal has not had its attention drawn to the contract and does not feel that it necessary to see it. The Tribunal accepts that the Respondents acted on health and safety advice and can see that there is a substantial advantage in employing a contractor to provide this service rather than requiring staff members to drive on slippery roads on an ad-hoc basis to get to the site and then spread grit. The Tribunal accepts [NAME_47]'s evidence that when this contract for gritting was made other companies were asked to tender. The Tribunal determines that these are service charge costs and they are reasonable.

252. The Tribunal moves on to consider the eleventh head of issues, the management company office. This area includes 21 [NAME_27] Schedule items:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 26, council rates, E401, £2,800 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 28, supplies, E403 to E414, £2,872.43 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 29/90, fire alarm connection, E415-419, F660, £1,190.74 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 30, air conditioning, E420, £192 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 34/245, rent, E426-429, G1154 £15,360 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 36, water rates, E441, £1,351.45 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 53, insurance, F517, £352.30 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 88, supplies, F654, £250 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 91, air conditioning, F661, 662, 664, £384 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 94, rent, F668, £15,360 k) [NAME_27] Schedule 96, water rates, F680, £286.47 l) [NAME_27] Schedule 98, council rates, F681, £3,097.60 m) [NAME_27] Schedule 124, milk and fuel, F733, £2,404.08 n) [NAME_27] Schedule 170, council rates, G916, £3,095.60 o) [NAME_27] Schedule 180, stationary, G952, £85.24 p) [NAME_27] Schedule 207, insurance, G989, £376.75 q) [NAME_27] Schedule 241, cleaning, G1149, £132 r) [NAME_27] Schedule 253/255, insurance, G1173, £878.38

253. Item a), l) and n), above. These are all non-domestic rates bills from West Lindsey Council. The Applicant asked questions about E401, which is clearly the second page of a rates payment bill and as a result, in [NAME_47]'s additional evidence the whole bill is produced (exhibits 5 and 6). The Tribunal determines that these are service charge costs and that they are reasonable.

254. Item e) and j), above. These invoices are from [COMPANY_49] who have sub let parts of two buildings along with rights of access to the First Respondent for use of their security and grounds staff. The rent

51

was at this time £15,360 per year. It appears that this was subject to a rent review by a [NAME_154], but in any event once the rent has been set in a contract it has to be paid. These are service charge costs and it was reasonable to pay any such rent charges.

255. Item g), p) and r), above. These invoices are from [COMPANY_49] to the First Respondent for payment of their proportion of the buildings insurance on the sub-let buildings. Once this had been agreed the First Respondent had to pay its share of the insurance. These are service charge costs and it was reasonable to pay any such insurance contribution charges. [NAME_27] Schedule 255 is a duplicate of [NAME_27] Schedule 253.

256. Item f) and k), above. This is a slightly more complex arrangement that is most easily described as the First Respondent pays these water rates, with a small proportion relating to the use of water in the sub-let buildings by the First Respondent's staff. The remainder of the cost is recharged to and paid for by [COMPANY_49]. To see how this works, E401 is a water rates bill for £265.57 and actually refers to the equipment store used by grounds staff. E443 is a re-charging of £254.41 to [COMPANY_49], deducting the cost of water used by the staff of the First Respondent, £11.26. The Tribunal accepts that all water rates in these two [NAME_27] Schedule points are dealt with in this way. These residue charges relate to water used by staff of the First Respondent and are service charge costs. These costs are reasonable.

257. Item b), h), m) and o), above. These invoices relate to fuel, purchased from the nearest petrol filling station, being the Co-Op and the purchase of coffee, tea, milk and sugar. Item o), above relates to stationary. The fuel is used in the security patrol vehicle and the Tribunal accepts that the tea, coffee, milk, sugar and stationary are used by staff of the First Respondent's staff on the site. These are clearly all sums that can be charged as a service charge. The Applicant contends that there could be savings of approximately 20% if the First Respondent made more of an effort to source the cheapest supply of each item needed and that stationary could be bought in bulk, reflecting a saving. There is no evidence adduced by the Applicant to support these propositions.

258. The First Respondent, in relation to obtaining supplies in general, observes that this falls to be carried out by the security patrol officer, hence the nearest source is used for each item, the Deli on site for the milk, the nearest petrol filling station etc. The Tribunal can see that there may be a saving if the cheapest source of supply is used, but that this would be difficult to quantify. However, the Tribunal also agrees with the First Respondent that the security patrol officer should be patrolling this gated and secure site. As such any saving in purchasing items from a cheaper source is likely to be offset by the additional time and fuel consumed by

52

achieving that saving., whilst also reducing security cover. It is not an unreasonable management decision to obtain these consumables in this way. The Respondent also contends that although stationary could be bought in bulk, the security office does not have huge storage areas for the storage of bulk bought stationary and that it is better to purchase that which is needed. It is not an unreasonable management decision to obtain stationary in this way. The Tribunal determines that these costs are reasonable.

259. Item d) and i), above. These invoices relate to air conditioning. The security office has air conditioning that can heat or cool the air in the office. The First Respondent has a contract for maintenance of the system with [NAME_158]. They charge £192 per visit and there are two visits per year. The Applicant challenges this as being too expensive, stating that a normal charge would be £125 for this work, but without any evidential support for this assertion. The Tribunal determines that these charges are service charge account charges and that they are reasonable.

260. Item c), above. These invoices relate to the fire alarm in the building housing the security office. The ground floor of that building remains in occupation by [COMPANY_159] as a sales office. Invoice E415 is to pay £72 to [NAME_161] to check the fire alarm systems. It was then discovered that the two systems were not linked and [NAME_160] suggested the work that would be required to link the systems together. E417 and E418 are for work done checking various fire alarm and extinguisher services. E419 in an invoice from [NAME_161] for linking the fire alarm systems together. The Applicant poses the question, did the [NAME_162] contribute to these expenses? The Respondent refers the Tribunal to F660 which is an invoice from the First Respondent to [COMPANY_159] for 50% of the cost of linking the two systems together. The Tribunal accepts that where a contribution was required from [COMPANY_159], such a contribution was paid. These costs are chargeable as service charge costs and they are reasonable.

261. Item q), above. This is an invoice for the deep clean of the security offices, by [NAME_163], G1149, cost £132. The Applicant asks why are service charges paying an external company to clean, when the grounds staff could have cleaned, in the same manner as they are hired out to [COMPANY_135] . The First Respondent points out that this was a deep clean following the replacement of a carpet, an expert cleaning company being paid to carry out the work. The Tribunal accepts the representations of the First Respondent, that in effect a specialist deep clean was required. The Tribunal determines that this is a service charge cost that is reasonable.

53

262. The Tribunal moves on to consider the twelfth head of issues, the management company credit card. This area includes 13 [NAME_27] Schedule items:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 31, first aid course, E422/423, £450 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 80, monitor, F615, £303.01 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 89, items charged to debit card, F656/659 etc, £138.40 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 99, various purchases, seven invoices listed, £317.24 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 122, car repair, F731, £156 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 160, monitors for security, G887, £722.34 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 166, replacement microwave, G911, £50.40 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 167, replacement vacuum cleaner, G912, £52.79 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 168, replacement kettle and others, £59.92 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 172, replacement vacuum cleaner, G918, £76.93 k) [NAME_27] Schedule 178, stationary, G948, £81.34 l) [NAME_27] Schedule 179, tea bags, G949, £76.16 m) [NAME_27] Schedule 238 and 254, Soldo card fee, G1120, £21.95 per month

263. The First Respondent contends that since it is a company without a credit rating it cannot easily obtain credit and cannot obtain a credit/debit card. As such its agent [NAME_46] operates a credit/debit card and has recently also brought into use a Soldo card that is used for the purchase of fuel. The Tribunal accepts these facts as being part of good management of the site, permitting small value purchases to be conducted at the suppliers till, by staff members, subject to [NAME_46] scrutiny, but reducing accounting work. The Tribunal reminds itself that [NAME_46], in addition to dealing with the credit card statements and till receipts, inspect the invoices coming through their office and carry out regular bank reconciliation checks which are then provided to the accountants who prepare the service charge accounts. The Tribunal determines that this is sufficient scrutiny of the cards in use. Any minor expense that is therefore encountered by running these two financial cards is a reasonable expense. Many of the costs in this head of issues have been purchased by use of such a card. This paragraph deals with item m), above and generally the whole head of issues.

264. Item a), above. These two invoices are to pay for three staff members, who are named on the invoices, to attend first aid courses. The Applicant contends that cheaper first aid courses could have been obtained, but without any evidence to support this assertion. The Respondents' reply to the effect that these courses were booked to fit in with working hours of the persons attending, ensuring that no overtime had to be paid. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents. These are service costs and they are reasonable.

54

265. Item b) and f), above. Two invoices for 3 monitors purchased for use in the security office. The Tribunal has inspected this office and there is a bank of such monitors in use, it is an obvious fact that on occasion they will need to be replaced. The Applicant asks where the monitors are to be used? The question has been answered. The Tribunal determines that these are service charge costs and that they are reasonable.

266. Item c), d), g), h), i), j), k) and l, above. This multitude of invoices involve credit card purchases of small value consumables or small kitchen/office electrical items. The Tribunal has already dealt with the use of the credit card, approving of this. An example being item j), being a replacement hoover after the first had broken. The Tribunal accepts the Respondents' evidence that these are all for use of the staff at the site and determines that they are all items that can be charged to the service charge account and that they have been purchased at a reasonable costs.

267. Item e), above. This is a credit card payment for repair to a damaged diesel fuel cut off switch. The First Respondent states that the grounds staff were not aware that a new vehicle had such a switch and accidentally damaged it. It was repaired by [NAME_164]. The Applicant asks for an explanation as to what was paid for? This has been answered. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent. This is a service charge cost and it is reasonable.

268. The Tribunal moves on to consider the thirteenth head of issues, building works (maintenance and repair), [NAME_165]. This area includes 16 [NAME_27] Schedule items:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 32, various repairs, E424, £455.40 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 39, block paving, F491, £2,664 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 41, painting footbridge, E493, £3,816 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 51, build bike shed, F514/515, £1,747.44 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 57, signpost, F546, £750 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 92, various repairs, F665, £3,127.20 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 102, paving repairs, F700, £475.20 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 103, paving repairs, F701, £552 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 104, repairs to fences, F702, £516 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 183, re-block paving, G957, £1,529.10 k) [NAME_27] Schedule 186, disconnect electricity supply linked with crossing, G964, £917.60 l) [NAME_27] Schedule 187, removal of pedestrian crossing, G965, £1,911.30 m) [NAME_27] Schedule 188, fill in pot holes, G966, £1,247.50 n) [NAME_27] Schedule 190, redress lead flashing, G968, £612.90 o) [NAME_27] Schedule 191, various repairs to gates, fencing and pot-holes, G971 p) [NAME_27] Schedule 251, various repairs, G1169, £950.48

55

269. These are invoices for work done at the site, usually on repairs and maintenance, although item d) is a new build. A large amount of this type work has been carried out by [COMPANY_167]. The First Respondent contends that this is a general builder used by [NAME_46] ([NAME_46] being agents of the First Respondent) on numerous sites, when work appropriate to [NAME_165]'s skills is being undertaken. [NAME_46] are able to check the invoiced price across sites where other contractors have been used and the hourly rate for labour (£40 per hour, see invoice F491 and later, £43.50 per hour G966) as charged by [NAME_165] is competitive. [NAME_168] know the site and therefore where their work fits into the overall picture. [NAME_46] do not think it appropriate to obtain alternative quotes for items of work on this site when they are of low value in terms of the service charges for the site and work is being undertaken by contractors that are used often, across sites.

270. The Respondents' point out that no quotes have been supplied by the Applicant, so that there is nothing that the Tribunal can consider the actual costs against. The Applicant generally contends that where [NAME_46] has been invoiced for the work done, that this should not be a service charge cost as [NAME_46] are not a Respondent. This has already been dealt with, that proposition is incorrect as it ignores the fact that [NAME_46] are agents for the First Respondent. Further, the Applicant makes a general contention that the works are too expensive.

271. The Tribunal determines that as a general proposition on this site, managed as it has been up this point by [NAME_46] as agents for the First Respondent, there is nothing wrong with [NAME_46] relying upon its huge experience in administering service charges on numerous sites to decide that [NAME_165] is charging reasonable sums for work that [NAME_165] is undertaking. The Applicant, although challenging the reasonableness of these costs, does not adduce any evidence to support this challenge. As such the Tribunal determines, that across this head of issues of service charge costs, the service charges are charged at a reasonable cost. Where charges should not be included into the service charge calculation at all, because they are not chargeable under the terms of the lease, the Tribunal is satisfied that they have not been charged to the Applicant’s service charge account. An example of this are item a), above, invoice E424, this contains a charge for refitting lead flashing above shops which was deleted by being crossed through and was deducted from the invoice cost, reducing the service charge cost from £677.40 to £455.40. Secondly, G957 entails a reduction being made relating to work to be paid for by [NAME_86]. This deals with items a), b) and e) to p), above, but in addition item o), above, has also been dealt with individually at paragraph 224 of this Decision.

272. Item c), above. This relates to painting the footbridge that is situated over the entrance canal into [NAME_52], often referred to as the [NAME_107].

56

This is maintenance of a footbridge that the Tribunal accepts to have been built upon the instructions of [COMPANY_78] when the public footpath along the side of the Fossdyke canal was cut through so that [NAME_52] could be connected to the Fossdyke. The Applicant asks to whom does this belong? and challenges the cost of this work, being £3,816. The invoice is dated 6 May 2015.

273. The bridge is at map reference 41 on the A1 size plan of the site numbered as page 212, but separate from the evidential lever arch files. That plan shows the public footpath, which was once almost certainly a tow path, going alongside the Fossdyke canal, approaching the site from the direction of Lincoln, going along the side of the site and then continuing past the site away from Lincoln. The plan marks on it the common areas of the site and the footpath and this bridge are not so marked, the plan therefore indicating that the footpath is not a common part of the site. The Tribunal inspected the bridge, footpath and the exterior fence of the gated compound at this location, taking photographs.

274. During the hearing when this point was dealt with at some length, it appeared to the Tribunal that the Respondents have some doubt as to whom the bridge belongs. The additional statement of [NAME_47], brought about by cross examination from the Applicant, contends that the bridge is a common part of the site and that therefore it falls to be maintained by the First Respondent as part of the Applicant's service charge costs.

275. The Tribunal does not agree with the Respondent on this point. The Tribunal determines that the bridge was built upon the instructions of [COMPANY_78] to enable [NAME_52] to be linked to the Fossdyke canal, whilst maintaining the public footpath. The bridge is part of the public footpath that goes past the site, and on the balance of probability the Tribunal determines that the bridge is not part of the site and is not a common area of the site. The Tribunal determines that the charge of £3,816 cannot be charged as a service charge cost to the Applicant’s service charge account. In 2015 the Tribunal has been informed that the Applicant was required to pay 0.2205% of service charge costs and therefore £8.41 must be credited to the Applicant's service charge account.

276. Item d), above. These two invoices relate to a bike shed being purchased and erected on the site, they are linked to [NAME_27] Schedule point 49, also referring to this bike shed. The Applicant asks if there were alternative quotes obtained for the work and disputes the whole amount. The Respondents contend that this bike shed was built with a grant from the Lincolnshire County Council at no cost to the Applicant's service charge account. The Tribunal accepts this evidence, there was no cost to the service charge account.

57

277. The Tribunal moves on to consider the fourteenth head of issues, [COMPANY_343]. This area includes 22 [NAME_27] Schedule items:

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 35/69, management and estate fee for 2015, E430, £36,000 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 62, debt chasing letters, F551, £1,900 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 95/143, management and estate fee for 2016, F672/F818, £36,000 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 134, 215, 268, surveyor apportionment F804, G1074, £600, £240, £480 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 136, revised handbook, F807, £123.66 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 137, 274, debt chasing fees, F808, G1211, £2,196, £1,062 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 138, F809, court fees £72 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 169/177, 226, management and estate fee for 2017, G3015/G942, G1085 £36,000 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 217, Sage pension module, G1076, £144 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 221, 223, 225, room hire for meeting with residents' group G1081, 1082, 1084, £88, £85, £31 k) [NAME_27] Schedule 246, 277 management and estate fee 2018, G1157, G1214, £40,200 l) [NAME_27] Schedule 270, printing handbook, G1207, £357

278. Items a), c), h), and k), above. These are charges for the management services provided by [NAME_46], charged as annual fees for management of the service charges and estate. Items b) and f), above deal with [NAME_46] fees for chasing debts relating to service charge payments. [NAME_46] have been involved in management of the site since 2007. The Respondents refer to a management agreement (C61), dated 8 April 2014, appointing [NAME_46] to the position of management agents, being agents for the First Respondent (this presumably being a re- appointment). At that date the fixed fees for work in relation to the service charge applicable to the Applicant was £24,000 and £6,000 for management of the estate, making a total of £30,000. In 2015, 2016 and 2017 the fixed fees for work in relation to the service charge applicable to the Applicant had increased to £30,000, with £6,000 in respect of the estate, making a total of £36,000 per annum . In 2018 the total fee was £42,000 per annum. Additional fees for debt chasing are permitted by the RICS Code and the lease and these are charged for by [NAME_46] at £15 per letter, prior to this appointment these letters were charged for at £50 per letter by [COMPANY_20].

279. The Applicant asks when these fees were reviewed and what they are for, challenging the whole amount of each fee. These management fees can all be charged under the terms of the lease, this fact not being challenged by

58

the Applicant. The Respondent has explained what the fees are for. The Tribunal is dealing with a huge site with a complicated structure of entities contributing to the service charge account, requiring the services of a chartered surveyor to calculate the proportion of service charges that each entity should pay. The First Respondent employs a permanent staff of grounds personnel and security officers at the site, operating a grounds store and a security office. The Security Officers utilise a patrol vehicle, security gates, barriers and CCTV, enabled at night by lighting in common areas so that the CCTV can monitor the site. Grounds staff operate vehicles and a huge quantity of equipment. This is one of the most complicated sites to manage that the Tribunal members have encountered. The Respondents' suggest that when enquiries were made they were quoted an alternative fee of £90,000 per year by another management agent.

280. The Tribunal notes that a fixed fee is the approved method of charging for this type of work pursuant to Code 3.3 of the RICS Code and that debt chasing letters are expected to be subject to an additional charge. The Tribunal notes that £15 per letter is substantially cheaper than the charges demanded by the solicitor prior to [NAME_46] taking on this task. The Tribunal notes that total expenditure on the site is approximately £400,000 per year (volume D, page 18 total expenditure for 2016, £407,553 and for 2015, £399,247). The Tribunal determines that the charges of [NAME_46] are within the scale of fees that are appropriate for this type of work and are reasonable.

281. Item d), above, to which the Tribunal adds [NAME_27] Schedule 59 at £600. These fees are to pay [NAME_57], the chartered surveyor, for his work in apportioning the sum to be paid by each entity on the site towards the service charge account applicable to the Applicant. It appears to be the case that the Applicant was not aware that this was happening at the time that this case commenced, he instead believing that services were being provided free of charge to other users of the site. The Applicant's challenges in [NAME_27] Schedule 59 and 134, are in fact a requests for information. The Applicant's challenges in [NAME_27] Schedule 215 and 268 ask why a fee is being paid for apportionment?

282. The Tribunal has considered these fees. It is clearly essential that this work is done, in that payment towards the service charge account applicable to the Applicant by other users of the site reduce the Applicant's payments. This is a management expense for work that cannot be undertaken by [NAME_46] themselves without criticism being levelled at them that they are not sufficiently independent to decide the level at which contributions by other entities should be made. As such these are fees that are chargeable as a service charge cost. These fees are reasonable.

283. Item e) and l), above. These are fees for the printing of a revised handbook and issuing a copy to every tenant. The Applicant states that the

59

handbook has nothing to do with residents and this should not be a service charge cost. The Respondents disagree, the handbook is supplied to all residents, this revised copy included in it a direction that residents are not to keep their dinghies on their lawns. The Tribunal accepts the Respondents' evidence and determines that these are costs for which service charges can be charged and that the costs are reasonable.

284. Item g), above. This a court fee. The applicant asks why it is charged to the service charge account and was the fee recovered from the Defendant? The Respondents have replied that the fee was recovered from the defendant and that it was not charged to the service charge account. The Tribunal accepts this evidence. The Tribunal determines that there was no service charge cost.

285. Item i), above. This was withdrawn by the Applicant during the hearing.

286. Item j), above. These are invoices that relate to meetings between management and the residents’ association. It is clearly in the best interests of the Applicant as a resident that such meetings take place. The Applicant appears to be suggesting that they should take place at a venue that is elsewhere than as used. The Tribunal determines that it is entirely up to the First respondent to choose a reasonable venue for such meetings. These are service charge costs and the costs are reasonable.

287. The Tribunal moves on to deal with the fifteenth head of issues, there are 17 [NAME_27] Schedule issues in this head.

a) [NAME_27] Schedule 60, pumping station, F549, £210 [NAME_27] Schedule 63, [NAME_169] charges, F552, £125 b) [NAME_27] Schedule 64, [NAME_95], F553, £300 c) [NAME_27] Schedule 65, [NAME_169] charges, F554, £250 d) [NAME_27] Schedule 66, lease breach, F555/556, £2918.68 and £1,698.48 e) [NAME_27] Schedule 68, [NAME_169] advice, F558, £187.50 f) [NAME_27] Schedule 86, [NAME_170], F645, £300 g) [NAME_27] Schedule 132, [NAME_169] advice, F802, £930.93 h) [NAME_27] Schedule 133, [NAME_169] advice, £500 i) [NAME_27] Schedule 139, [NAME_169] advice, F810, £874.20 j) [NAME_27] Schedule 141, [NAME_169] advice, F815, £745.25 k) [NAME_27] Schedule 216, [NAME_169] advice, G1075, £1,750 l) [NAME_27] Schedule 222, [NAME_169] advice, G1078, £1,098.49 m) [NAME_27] Schedule 224, [NAME_169] advice, G1083, £1,140.50 n) [NAME_27] schedule 269, GDPR training, G1206, £100 o) [NAME_27] schedule 271, GDPR training, G1208, £495 p) [NAME_27] Schedule 272, [NAME_169] advice, G1209, £200

288. [NAME_169] referred to above is the [COMPANY_172], Directors of which are [NAME_173] (the daughter of [NAME_175] who

60

is a Director of the First Respondent) and [NAME_32] (husband of [NAME_173]). [NAME_178] and [NAME_179] were equity partners in [NAME_321], before setting up [NAME_169]. They provide strategic advice to customers, one of which is the First Respondent (and [NAME_46]) [NAME_169] are retained on a written retainer. They can assist in legal advice falling short of matters that would require the involvement of a practicing solicitor. The First Respondent also instructs the solicitors firm [COMPANY_20], when the need arises.

289. The Applicant challenges the invoices from [NAME_169] asking why a relative of [NAME_175] is being used at all? Asking if quotes have been obtained from other firms who could do this work and raising the possibility that work is being duplicated, because sometimes [COMPANY_20] will also become involved. All of the invoices from [NAME_169] are challenged in their totality. The Applicant does not provide any alternative estimates for comparison.

290. The Respondents point out that [NAME_169] charge half the fee for work done by its Directors, when compared with [COMPANY_20]. As such the Respondents' contend that [NAME_169] are very good value. There is no duplication of work, but sometimes a solicitors firm will be needed to continue in a matter that has been subject to advice from [NAME_169].

291. The Tribunal can see no reason why the First Respondents and [NAME_46] should not be able to instruct [NAME_169] when their skills are needed. True, the First respondent could go straight to [COMPANY_20], if the matter is one that might have to involve a solicitor at the end of the day, but this would only serve to increase the service charge that the Applicant is required to pay. The Tribunal determines that the use of [NAME_169], where the management of this site considers this to be appropriate, is a money saving device and is chargeable as a service charge cost under the fifth schedule, paragraph 2.2 of the lease.

292. The Tribunal has seen four time sheets for work done by the Directors of [NAME_169], F803 (item h)), F811 (item j)), F816 (item k)) and served as additional evidence during the hearing to item m), all in this head of issues above. It appears to the Tribunal that much of the work done by [NAME_169] relates to the practicality of running the site (strategic), rather than quasi- legal. The Tribunal determines that it is unlikely that this kind of strategic quasi-legal advice could be obtained at a similar price elsewhere. The Tribunal determines that the invoices raised by [NAME_169] are all at a reasonable cost. This deals with items, b), d), f), h), i), j), k), l), m), n), and q), above.

293. Item a), above. This relates to a pumping station that is off the site, but to which access is essential by the grounds staff as it helps to prevent the site from flooding. [COMPANY_20] provided advice in this matter and it

61

was paid for by [COMPANY_180]. This was then re- charged to the First Respondent as it was a management expense.

294. The Applicant asks for an explanation as to why this happened and an explanation has been given. The whole amount of £210 is challenged. This is advice relating to an essential management matter and is a service charge expense. The cost is reasonable.

295. Item c), above. The Applicant challenges the whole of this work, invoiced by [NAME_181] to the First Respondent on the basis that it charges for work done already by [NAME_169] (invoice at page F698). The First Respondent submits that it is not the same work and refers the Applicant to the invoices.

296. The Tribunal consults the two invoices. F698 is from [NAME_169] for advice relating to the structure and legal standing of the First Respondent at a cost of £125. F553 is an invoice for £300 from [NAME_182] for research and advice on the company law rights of tenants of properties which are under the management of the management company, a company limited by guarantee; reviewing and considering the company constitution documents of [NAME_9] along with the lease documentation and advising accordingly. As a result of questions asked by [NAME_40], [NAME_47] covers this in her additional statement and states that it is not a duplication of work but it is work that naturally flowed from the initial work done by [NAME_169]. The advice given by [NAME_182] is subject to legal privilege.

297. The Tribunal accepts the explanation given by [NAME_47]. There was no duplication of work. The cost is one that can be charged as a service charge and is reasonable.

298. Item e), above. This relates to a breach of a covenant in a lease by a resident who had a shed constructed in her garden. To set the scene fully, item d), above is [NAME_169] advice relating to this issue (that item has already been determined as chargeable and reasonable). These two invoices are the interim cost and final invoice in relation to taking the tenant responsible to court for breach of the lease. The matter was successfully resolved in favour of the First Respondent. The First Respondent had decided to make an issue out of this breach because it set down the marker that garden sheds would not be permitted on the site. The Tribunal determines that it was perfectly reasonable for the covenants in the lease to be enforced and accepts the evidence given that these costs were not recovered as a result of the settlement of this case. This is an expense that can be charged to the service charge account and it is a reasonable expense.

62

299. Item g), above. Invoice F645 is from [NAME_183] who acted for a security guard in a dispute between the guard and management. The dispute was settled and part of the settlement was that this invoice be paid by the First Respondent. As such this is a charge that can be charged to the service charge account and it is a reasonable expense.

300. Item o) and p), above. These invoices relate to GDPR training for some personnel linked to the site. Invoice G1206 is to pay for the attendance of [NAME_47] at a training course on GDPR, attended also by some personnel from other firms on the site. Invoice G1208 is the purchase of GDPR materials, referred to as a 'generic GDPR suite' from [NAME_169] so that they could then be copied and distributed to staff that needed access to such materials. The Tribunal determines that these are reasonable management costs that can be charged to the service charge account and it is a reasonable expense.

301. Having completed the 15 heads of issues as designed by [NAME_15], the Tribunal went through the [NAME_27] Schedule to make sure that all items on the [NAME_27] Schedule have been dealt with. The Tribunal discovered that they have not all been dealt with and moved on then to determine the remaining [NAME_27] Schedule items.

302. [NAME_27] Schedule item 5. This was withdrawn by the Applicant during the hearing.

303. [NAME_27] Schedule item 14. This refers to an emergency call out of [NAME_92] to put new codes into security equipment after a power outage. The Applicant challenges the whole amount of £306 on the basis that the security officers on site should have been able to deal with this themselves. The Respondents' were unable to find the invoice to which this relates, despite a reference number being provided by the Applicant, it is however clear what the issues in this item are. The Respondents state that due to staff holidays and a change of staff, the codes necessary for the security officers to deal with this themselves were not available to them, as they would normally have been. As such there was no alternative but to call out [NAME_92]. The Tribunal accepts the assertions of the Applicant. It is clear that an error has been made by the First Respondent's manager in permitting the security staff to be put in a position that meant that they could not deal with this power outage without assistance. As such the Tribunal determines that this expense could easily have been avoided by the management agent and that it is therefore unreasonable for this to charged as a service charge cost. The full amount of £306 must be credited to the Applicants service charge account. This occurred in 2015 and therefore the sum of £306 x 0.2205% =68 pence must be credited to the Applicant’s service charge account.

63

304. [NAME_27] Schedule 27. This invoice, E402 is from [NAME_325], £70.48 for toilet tissue and hand towels. The Applicant makes the point that the toilet tissue is of good quality ([NAME_184]), asks why expensive toilet tissue is being purchased, who monitors it and who should be paying for it? The whole cost is challenged. The First Respondent states that this is for use in the security office for staff and anyone who is permitted to visit the office. It is monitored by the staff. It is a service charge cost. The Tribunal accepts the First Respondent's evidence and determines that these are reasonable management costs that can be charged to the service charge account and it is a reasonable expense.

305. [NAME_27] Schedule item 33. This is said to be an invoice from [NAME_104] for the sum of £102. The Applicant gives a reference to the invoice but the Respondent was unable to find the invoice during the hearing. The Applicant contends that this amount should not have been spent because it refers to work being done to a diffuser on the [NAME_70] on the site, despite there being evidence in the case that the crossing lights were not working at all during 2014 to 2017. The Respondent does not make any clear response to this submission being uncertain as to which invoice is being referred to. The Applicant asked questions about this issue, the Respondent indicating that additional evidence will be served, but it has not been. The Tribunal determines that this was an unreasonable expense as there was no point in instructing an electrician to carry out work on a crossing light that was known to be inoperative. The full amount of £102 must be credited to the Applicants service charge account. This occurred in 2015 and therefore the sum of £102 x 0.2205% =23 pence must be credited to the Applicant’s service charge account.

306. [NAME_27] Schedule item 61. This is an invoice from [NAME_185] for £594 to pay for architectural plans for the First Respondent to show the CCTV camera positions and then to provide an up to date handover plan. The whole amount is disputed with a request for information that has been provided. The Tribunal accepts the First Respondent's evidence that these plans were required for management purposes and determines that these are reasonable management costs that can be charged to the service charge account and it is a reasonable expense.

307. [NAME_27] Schedule item 79. The Applicant withdrew this claim during the hearing.

308. [NAME_27] Schedule item 82. The Applicant submits that these 5 pages of invoices refer to proposed works to the CCTV system. The Respondent agrees, these are quotes relating to future work and no cost was charged to the service charge account until such work was carried out against invoices then provided. The Applicant withdrew this claim.

64

309. [NAME_27] Schedule item 84.This relates to car insurance arranged by [NAME_142], invoice F632, for £817.60. The whole amount is challenged, apparently on the basis that no alternative quotes for insurance were obtained. The Respondent submits that this insurance involved 12 members of staff being permitted to use the motor vehicle in question and that it was arranged by an insurance broker. The Tribunal has already determined that it is reasonable for the Respondent to rely upon an insurance broker to test the market and get the most suitable insurance cover available for the customer. The Tribunal accepts the First Respondent's evidence and determines that this is a cost that can be charged to the service charge account and it is a reasonable expense.

310. [NAME_27] Schedule item 97. The Applicant seeks an assurance that unspecified electricity bills do not involve the supply of electricity to any other entity. The Respondent gives that assurance, there was one bill that did need to be recharged to [COMPANY_71] and this was done. This is not a challenge to a service charge cost.

311. [NAME_27] Schedule item 107. This relates to invoice F705 for £258, which is the First Respondent re-charging the cost of a repair to a [NAME_186] in the site to the driver responsible for damaging it. It is addressed to the driver, who's details are not material. The Applicant suggests that it is an invoice for the repair by [NAME_165], which is not correct. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent and the invoice and determines that this was not a cost to the service charge account.

312. [NAME_27] Schedule item 110. This refers to invoice F708, already dealt with under a different invoice number , but duplicated again for accounting purposes. Both Parties agree that it is a duplicate and the Applicant asks why this was done, that question having been answered. This is not a challenge to a service charge cost.

313. [NAME_27] Schedule 113. This relates to invoice F712, a quote for the painting of a gazebo situated in a common area on the [NAME_51]. The Respondent contends that it would have been a service charge cost if the work had been carried out as it would be a repair to a gazebo in a common area, but in fact the work was not carried out because upon inspection it was not approved, the gazebo being in a reasonable condition. The Tribunal accepts the Respondents’ evidence. This is not a service charge cost.

314. [NAME_27] Schedule 126. This relates to contributions to insurance payments being made relating to the lease between [NAME_48] and the First Respondent, of the security office and grounds store. This situation has already been dealt with in 2015 service charge year. This invoice is for £365.78 to be paid by the First Respondent to [NAME_48] who insure the buildings. The Tribunal accepts the First Respondent's

65

evidence and determines that this is a cost that can be charged to the service charge account and is a reasonable expense.

315. [NAME_27] Schedule 129. This relates to invoice F597, for £780, from [NAME_318]. The Applicant asks where the work was carried out and disputes the whole amount. The Respondent states that the work was carried out on [ADDRESS] from the main gate, along the road and behind houses along the edge of the towpath. A map reference is provided for clarity. The Respondent asserts that this is common land within the site. The Tribunal accepts the First Respondent's evidence and determines that this is a cost that can be charged to the service charge account and is a reasonable expense.

316. [NAME_27] Schedule 131 (a) to (l). This is almost identical to the points raised in [NAME_27] Schedule 56 for service charge year 2015, dealt with above, but now refers to service charge 2016. The Applicant makes a general request for production of all 2016 invoices to [COMPANY_14], [COMPANY_49] and [COMPANY_159]. The Respondent replies that they were all contained in the documents inspected by the Applicant previously. The Applicant then raises the same challenges as have already been raised in 2015, but now for 2016, that in effect other entities on the site should be paying more into the service charge account than they have been required to pay through apportionment. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that this is in effect a repeat of the same issues as raised in [NAME_27] Schedule item 56 and as such does not fall to be dealt with in detail again. The Tribunal determines that it is not appropriate to raise speculative requests for information at this late stage and that there are no refunds to the Applicant's service charge account subject to this [NAME_27] Schedule item.

317. [NAME_27] Schedule 135. These relate to the fees of [NAME_169] as already dealt with earlier. This time the advice given to the First Respondent relates to security officers. There is an invoice and a breakdown of time spent on this work F805, invoice for £939.20 and F806, time log. As already determined, the work of [NAME_169] is charged at a reasonable sum and is chargeable as a service charge cost. The Tribunal makes a similar determination in this issue.

318. [NAME_27] Schedule 149. An invoice for £199.56. This has been conceded by the Respondents. This relates to service charge year 2017. The service charge account of the Applicant must receive a credit of £199.56 x 0.2084% = 42 pence.

319. [NAME_27] Schedule 154 was withdrawn by the Applicant during the hearing.

320. [NAME_27] Schedule 161. The Tribunal had thought that this point had been missed and not determined, until it embarked upon the double check

66

described in paragraph 331 of this Decision. In fact the point has been dealt with at paragraph 237, in favour of the Respondents.

321. [NAME_27] Schedule 164. This invoice is for the insurance excess of £250 after repairs were carried out to the security vehicle that had been damaged due to the negligence of a security officer, G900. Due to the requirements of the rental agreement this repair had to be done by an authorised repair centre. The Tribunal determines that since this is damage caused by a security officer, that officer should have paid the insurance excess. It is not a service account cost. A refund must be made to the Applicant’s service charge account. This relates to service charge year 2017. The service charge account of the Applicant must receive a credit of £250 x 0.2084% = 52 pence.

322. [NAME_27] Schedule 174. Invoice G925 is the monthly fee for health and safety advice from [NAME_152]. The remainder of the invoices are similar, for subsequent months, making a total of £2,640. The Applicant contends that this work is of little value, the Tribunal disagrees and has already determined that in a site of this nature health and safety advice and monitoring by an expert is essential. The Tribunal determines that this is a cost that can be charged to the service charge account and is a reasonable expense.

323. [NAME_27] Schedule 176. These invoices relate to the rent due to [COMPANY_135] from the First Respondent, and include a back payment of rent after a rent review resulted in an increase of the rent. The Applicant asks when the rent was reviewed, the reply is that it was reviewed under the terms of the lease by a [NAME_187]. There was then a further contention brought by the Applicant that this was not an at arm's length review. The Tribunal notes that the lease does include a rent review clause and does not intend to consider whether or not [NAME_188] was truly independent as this issue has been raised at too late a stage. The Tribunal has already considered this issue in prior years and determined that the rent is a service charge cost and is reasonable.

324. [NAME_27] Schedule 181. This is an invoice, G995, from Lincolnshire County Council to [NAME_46] for £360 for a road safety audit relating to the [NAME_70] on the site. As a result of complaints about the [NAME_70] the Respondents organised a road safety audit of the crossing and were advised that it should be removed. This is an invoice in relation to this issue. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents and determines that this is a service charge cost that is reasonable.

325. [NAME_27] Schedule 218.This is an invoice from [COMPANY_319] for a payment of £70, continuing work in relation to Workplace Pension Reforms and intermediation. The Applicant disputes the full amount asking what other quotes were obtained. On this occasion the

67

Respondents' reply that an additional quote was obtained and that this firm were the best value. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents and determines that this is a service charge cost that is reasonable.

326. [NAME_27] Schedule 219.The Applicant's reference is to page 996, that is G1079 in the evidential bundles. The invoice is from [NAME_169], but is not for The amount suggested by the Applicant, is it for £1,098.49. The Applicant challenges the invoice because of the close family relationship between [NAME_296] and his daughter. The Respondent states that [NAME_169] work at half the price of [COMPANY_20]. [NAME_46] are surveyors and need advice in relation to matters outside their area of expertise, that is what [NAME_169] provide. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents and determines that this is a service charge cost that is reasonable.

327. [NAME_27] Schedule 220. This is an invoice from [NAME_46], [NAME_190], £1,782 for debt chasing letters. The Applicant refuses to pay this amount because he suggests that this should be covered by the annual management fee. The Respondents simply refer to [NAME_27] Schedule point 62, where this has already been determined. The Tribunal points out that the basic management fee does not include debt chasing letters, it only includes the service charge demand and instructing a debt collection agency, RICS Code, third edition, Code 3.4. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents' and determines that this is a service charge cost that is reasonable.

328. [NAME_27] Schedule 232. This is an invoice from [NAME_92] to the First Respondent, [NAME_191], charging £66 for work done to the pontoon gate. The Applicant refuses to pay this on the basis that it should be paid by [COMPANY_49]. The Respondents agree and state that it was recharged to [COMPANY_49]. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents and determines that this invoice having been recharged to [COMPANY_49], is not a service charge cost.

329. [NAME_27] Schedule 261.This does not relate to an invoice. The Applicant contends that time sheets of staff (presumably grounds staff, but this is not made clear) show that they are called upon to clean toilets for [COMPANY_135] on Bank Holidays, when they should be paid extra. However, [COMPANY_49] are not required to pay anything extra. This causes a loss to the service charge account. The Respondents' reply that the Respondents do not pay extra hourly rates for Bank Holiday working, so that no loss is caused because of this and refers generally to [NAME_27] Schedule point 56. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondents and determines that there is no loss caused to the service charge account.

68

330. [NAME_27] Schedule 275. The Applicant states that this refers to an invoice with an inspection reference of 423, this equates to an evidence bundle reference of G1211, an invoice for debt chasing letters, not the invoice being referred to by the Applicant. The Respondents speculate that the Applicant meant to refer to a different reference number, suggesting an inspection reference number, but do not then include that page in the evidential bundle. The Applicant seeks to challenge an invoice from [NAME_169] for £675, asking for information as to what was being paid for and some information is provided by the Respondent. This was not dealt with during the hearing, as the Tribunal ran out of hearing time before this was reached. The Tribunal has checked the Applicant's submissions, dated 20 July 2021 but has not found anything to assist with this point. The Tribunal having considered invoice G1211, as referred to by the Applicant determines that this does not relate to [NAME_27] Schedule 275. The Tribunal has already considered [NAME_169] invoices and found that they are service charge costs and that they are reasonable. There is nothing in this [NAME_27] Schedule point that changes the Tribunal's prior determination on [NAME_169] invoices.

331. The Tribunal, having now dealt with all 278 issues on the [NAME_27] Schedule moves on to check the determinations made against the [NAME_27] Schedule, modifying the [NAME_27] Schedule by adding the paragraph numbers in the Decision that deal with the determination of each [NAME_27] Schedule issue. The amended [NAME_27] Schedule is attached to the Decision as annex 1. This is provided for the benefit of the Parties so that they will more easily be able to find the paragraphs that deal with a particular point. It also demonstrates that all [NAME_27] Schedule points have been dealt with.

332. The Tribunal determines that the following amounts must be credited to the Applicant’s service charge account: • [NAME_27] Schedule 13, Decision paragraph 199, (2015) £0.18 • [NAME_27] Schedule 41, Decision paragraph 274, (2015) £8.41 • [NAME_27] Schedule 14, Decision paragraph 303, (2015) £0.14 • [NAME_27] Schedule 33, Decision paragraph 305, (2015) £0.23 • [NAME_27] Schedule 149, Decision paragraph 318, (2017) £0.42 • [NAME_27] Schedule 164, Decision paragraph 321, (2017) £0.52

Total £10.44

333. The Applicant asks the Tribunal to consider making an order, pursuant to section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, on his own behalf and latterly seeks to extend this to include other tenants. Such an order would prevent the landlord from including some or all of the costs incurred in connection with these proceedings in the calculation of service charge costs for the named tenants. The Tribunal is also asked to consider making an order pursuant to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, schedule 11, part 1, section 5A, to reduce the liability of named tenants from the liability to pay administration charges in respect of litigation costs.

69

334. In respect of both applications the Tribunal determines that there is no good or sufficient reason to extend the protections provided under these provisions to any person other than the Applicant, so the application to add other tenants to this part of the case is refused.

335. The Tribunal notes that the claim is for 278 areas of service charges to be reduced or extinguished over four service charge years. The Tribunal has determined that there will be six reductions of service charges resulting in the First Respondent crediting the sum of £10.44 to the Applicant's service charge account. As such the Applicant has substantially failed to establish a case against the Respondents. Further, the Applicant only attended the final hearing of this case during its first 2 days, although the case has been listed with his availability in mind. Further, when in attendance at the hearing the Applicant failed to take any active part in the proceedings, not giving any instructions to his lay case presenter and permitting his representative to run the case, rather than just present it for the Applicant. The Tribunal determines that it not just, equitable or reasonable to make all the other residents of this site pay for the litigation costs of this case, whilst exempting the Applicant from them. No orders are made.

336. This case has in part proceeded whilst the Covid-19 pandemic has been in progress. The only effect that this had on the case is that instead of there being a hearing in a Tribunal room with all interested persons present in the hearing room, there has been a quasi-hearing. The Tribunal arranged for the Parties and representatives to be present in the hearing room (limiting this to allow for Covid-19 restrictions), but with two witnesses being called to give evidence via a video link. In fact it was not necessary for either witness to give evidence. The Tribunal has monitored this and is satisfied that no injustice has been caused by the changes brought about by the Covid-19 pandemic, to the Parties in this case.

337. Three other cases have been stayed whilst awaiting the outcome of this case. The stay on those cases will be lifted three months after this Decision is sent to the Parties. This delay is designed to accommodate the possibility of appeals.

Decision

338. The Applicant has already paid service charges for service charge years 2015 and 2016. The First Respondent must now credit to the Applicant's service charge account with the sum of £10.44 and when that has been done the Applicant must then, without delay, pay the remainder of the service charges demanded for service charge years 2017 and 2018.

70

339. There are no orders made pursuant to section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, or the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, schedule 11, part 1, section 5A.

340. Appeal is to the Upper Tribunal. Any Party wishing to appeal against this Decision or any of the Decisions taken in the documents annexed to this Decision have 28 days from the date that the Decision is sent to the Parties to deliver to this First-tier Tribunal a written application for permission to appeal. Such an application must state the grounds of appeal, the particulars of each ground of appeal, the paragraph numbers of the Decision that are appealed against and the result that is sought by raising the appeal.

Judge Tonge

Date this Decision and annexes sent to the Parties, 15 September 2021

Annex 1, the [NAME_27] Schedule Annex 2, the Decision (strike out application) made on 3 April 2019 Annex 3, the Decision (strike out application) made on 6 February 2020 Annex 4, the Directions of 22 December 2020

71

ANNEX 1 [NAME_27] SCHEDULE Applicant's comments Respondents' comments Paragraph in the Decision 2015

1 There is a cost of two SIA Licences of £528 [1]- one of whom is for [NAME_83] at a cost of £264, the only [NAME_83] known is a director of [COMPANY_218], whom is not an employee of [COMPANY_8], and has no necessity for an [NAME_196] to be paid for by Leaseholders service charge funds. [NAME_46] have advised they were inspected by SIA, and that [NAME_88] was going to become a director, we asked for proof of such inspection and confirmation in the company paperwork that [NAME_88] was going to be a director; none has been provided. We asked for sight of the other two Directors licences -none provided. This cost of the licence paid for by Leaseholders, should be reimbursed as [NAME_88] gained a credit and benefit for herself, at a full cost to Leaseholders, and the Landlord has failed to provide any further information to support their reply in two years. [NAME_88] licence provides no benefit to the leaseholders within the service charge, and was a wasteful cost. £264 should be reimbursed to the service charge When we were inspected by the SIA, [NAME_83] was to become a director of the management company in place of a previous director. The SIA insisted that she, along with [NAME_193] and [NAME_195], hold Non-frontline SIA licences. This is a legal requirement. Copies of the licences have not been provided because the SIA have a website and their licence checker can be used by anyone to check if someone holds a licence and/or what type. The answer to this was given to [NAME_58] and as part of a previous complaint by him to Property Ombudsman [225] 138

72

2 There is also concern that Leaseholders are paying for SIA security licences for staff, which is highly unusual, as it is normal within the industry for individuals to pay for such licences themselves, and claim full tax relief. There has been a high turnover of security staff, these last 3 years, within security and it is requested how many staff have been employed in this period, where leaseholders have paid for SIA Licences and they have left, even those licences which have been paid for as renewals. I do not agree to any SIA Licences been paid for any staff via service charge costs, any licences paid in 15/16/17/18 such should be funded themselves and they should be able to claim appropriate tax relief. All SIA Licences paid for in the 15/ 16/ 17/ 18 period should be recredited back into service charge funds. Security staff at [NAME_10] are paid minimum wage which is below wages paid by other security companies in the area. We know this as the security provision has been tendered to other companies to quote in previous years. Therefore, we pay the [NAME_196] fee of £220 which lasts for three years and equates to £0.03 per hour that each security officer works over the licence period. When we employ staff, we must make sure that they each hold an [NAME_196]. For full time staff we then pay for them as and when they need renewing. As part of security staff contracts there is provision that if the company pays for a [NAME_196] for a staff member and they leave a proportion is repaid back to the company by the employee. The % repaid is dependent on how long after paying for the licence they leave. 138 3 We cannot find an audit of Key fobs, which all residents use for entry into private residential areas, we see purchase receipts for the fobs, at a cost of purchase for each fob of £3.50 plus vat . The key fobs are charged at £24. There are numerous key fobs bought in periods 15/ 16/ 17/ 18 and it is not known how many were in stock as of 1/1/15. The sale of such is recorded by hand written notes by security, whom also issue refunds for returned key fobs when residents leave the development, but the number of fobs purchased and those sold, do not seem to correlate, there seems to be more key fobs bought than sold. This is poor monitoring and account management of such, which is clearly open to abuse. The applicant needs to understand why a profit is being made on Key Fobs. The applicant has been made aware security were asked on or Please provide proof of the applicant’s allegations in regard to 150 key fobs being taken by [NAME_197]. In regard to key fobs in 2015, 2 key fobs per property were issued to every property sold on [NAME_1]. When a fob is damaged or breaks it is replaced. The difference between the sale price and cost price of the fobs pays for this. Please also note that the sale of the fobs is included in the accounts as a credit against the cost of access control. Charging individual leaseholders is an adminstration cost, not a service charge. If the leaseholder hasn’t been charged, he can't challenge it. 148, 149

73

around this time to hand over a box of over 150 key fobs to XXXXXXXX (name redacted by Judge Tonge) and were never returned or paid for. It is believed XXXXXXXX (name redacted by Judge Tonge), then uses these fobs , to be allowed to be sold via XXXXXXXX (company name redacted by Judge Tonge) to boat holders to access [NAME_52] and their own exclusive car parks -for a profit. The applicant is concerned that monies are not fully accounted for; in regard to the key fobs and as to cost, stock and sale price and that misappropriation of such, exists. Flowing there from the applicant requests an independent audit of such for the period of 15/ 16/ 17/ 18. 4 It is also further noted that security staff deal with "utility cards" for electric and water to boat owners, whom are exclusive customers of [NAME_48]. Security staff are monitoring and dealing with boat owners issues and enquiries, costing security considerable time and resources. No charge is made for these services provided, despite such security employment costs being fully funded by service charge funds. [COMPANY_223] has clearly failed to invoice for this time spent by security, for the periods 15/16/17/18 , which based on feedback from security staff, can be on average 90 minutes a day taken up, with dealing with [NAME_48] utility cards and other issues - there should be a charge of £25 per hour plus vat to [NAME_11] [NAME_48] pay service charge (£16,000 per annum) the same as all leaseholders on site. Their percentage is worked out by an independent surveyor and takes into account their use of the services on site. This is why their percentage is the same as other large users of the onsite services. Due to this we do not agree that extra charges should be made to [NAME_202] for sale of fobs and electric cards out of office hours. Please provide details of which security staff you have been asking questions of. [NAME_297], as per follows:

a. 2015 - Use of Security Services time at £25 plus vat per hour, which on average is 90 minutes is £37.50 for 365 days is £13,687.50 plus vat, which should be invoiced to [NAME_48] and recredited back into the 201 S service charge period. 141 b. 2016 - Use of Security Services time at £25 plus vat per hour, which on average is 90 minutes is £37.50 for 352 days is £13,687.50 plus vat, which should be invoiced to [NAME_48] and recredited back into the 2016 service charge period. 141 c. 2017 - Use of Security Services time at £25 plus vat per hour, which on average is 90 minutes is £37.50 for 352 days is £13,687.50 plus vat, which should be invoiced to [NAME_48] and recredited back into the 2017 service charge period. 141 d. 2018 - Use of Security Services time at £25 plus vat per hour, which on average is 90 minutes is £37.50 for 352 days is £13,687.50 plus vat, which should be invoiced to [NAME_48] and recredited back into the 2018 service charge period. 141

e. A total of £54,750 plus vat for period 2015 to 2018 should be

141

75

recovered from [COMPANY_135]. 5 Security/ [NAME_73] costs seem overall very high and do not offer value for monies. There is no experienced horticultural or professional qualified manager or employee within the gardening team leading to poor management of Landscaping and poor monitoring, this is further evidenced throughout the accounts by considerable sums spent on security and landscaping, which hugely benefit the directors [NAME_203] and [NAME_204] and their respective own companies Generalisation no specifics. As per point 2 security staff are paid at least the minimum wage; all staff working in security are paid the same hourly rate no matter their age. This is the [NAME_39] way to pay as they all do the same job and shift patterns. No shift allowances are paid for night shifts solely a flat hourly rate. Security Duty Managers have been appointed in 2018 to aide the other security officers in giving more consistent training and provides someone that the security officers can report to on site. In regard to the grounds maintenance staff, there has always been a head grounds person which is paid a higher rate of pay due to their experience in operating relevant machinery and for taking charge of the vast landscaping around site. We receive no other complaints from anyone on site regarding the grounds’ maintenance. We have employed apprentices who have gone on to achieve horticultural qualifications and staff who are qualified in spraying etc as this then provides better value to the service charge than using outside contractors. We have purposely not given staff training in some areas because on investigation the additional cost of insurance and equipment has made it unviable. 302 6 In essence there are no charges made to [NAME_206] or [NAME_48] for security costs, despite numerous hours spent dealing with these companies issues on a day to day basis, at considerable service charge expense. An appropriate charge for such services should be reviewed by the Tribunal and thus [NAME_202] pay service charge the same as all leaseholders on site. Their percentage is worked out by an independent surveyor and takes into account their use of the services on site. [NAME_13] also pay annual service charge for undeveloped parts of the site. 141

76

reimbursed into the service charge costs for the periods in question. 7 Page 3 re [NAME_92] 114533 -it is asked why no recovery was made of this cost against the vehicle and owner that caused the damage, as such would be covered on their insurance and the vehicle details would have been recorded on CCTV. The applicant will not pay £284.04, which should be a recoverable cost. Where a vehicle damages the barrier, we check CCTV and if the vehicle is registered on site we invoice the person responsible. If they do not live on site and is a private car we cannot invoice them. If the cost of the repair is more than the £500 excess on the insurance policy then we pass to our insurers. In this instance we could not do this. In 2017 we fitted an ANPR to the main barrier on [ADDRESS]; this means that we can get the registration number of the vehicle but [NAME_207] cannot look up an owner unless the vehicle is registered on site. If they are a visitor to still have no way of recovering unless it is put through the insurance and then we must pay the £500 excess. The time and cost of pursuing payment outweighs the cost of the barrier. 233 8 Page 8; There is an invoice from [COMPANY_8] at a cost of £7,464.84 to [NAME_48] for a security barrier for [NAME_1] main entrance, this has been paid for by Leaseholders, as demonstrated by the invoice and not [COMPANY_208] the developer of [NAME_1], [NAME_1] was then in its site development phase, moreover the site had not yet been handed over. The applicant seeks the costs incurred in this expense to raise this invoice, as no invoice of cost, was attached. When this was originally discovered [NAME_241] explained this was an invoice paid for by Leaseholders but invoiced to [NAME_48], but such made no sense, when further explanation sought -none further This is an invoice from [NAME_207] to [NAME_202] [229]. The invoices are not entered into our system until they are paid. There is no charge to the Management company or service charge. It is simply that whilst on site at another job [NAME_92] made emergency repairs to [NAME_1] barrier on our instruction. The management company paid the invoice and recharged to [NAME_202] who then repaid the management company. We should not have to provide proof of payment as the accounts are checked and audited by an external accountant at each year end. The answer to this was given to [NAME_58] and as part of a previous complaint by him to Property Ombudsman. 145

77

provided. No proof of purchase was provided from [NAME_48], no proof of payment was supplied of the invoice. However, the question was and is still raised, as to why are leaseholders, paying for an installation of a Security Access Control Barrier to [NAME_1], on a new development of [COMPANY_71], which should be a development cost, but strangely it seems leaseholders pay for such new build costs and then invoice to [NAME_48]. Why did the [COMPANY_8] receive such an invoice in the first place? The whole transaction needs searching scrutiny . Disputed £7,464.84 - proof of payment required and a full explanation required of the transaction. 9 Page 13 shows work carried out to Pontoon 1 Bin Store by [NAME_92], which Leaseholders have no access to and relates to [NAME_48] - why are Leaseholders paying for such in the first instance, and has the invoice for such works to [NAME_48] 1 actually been paid -proof required? Moreover, why is time being spent by staff in dealing with such invoice and again not charged for time spent? Disputed £867.08 -proof of payment required and full explanation required. This invoice was recharged to [NAME_202]; please see [231]. Refer to point 8 regarding recharging. 145 10 Page 16 -shows Invoice for work done to Quays Pedestrian Gate by [NAME_92] - this is for the gate on the new development of [NAME_1] by [NAME_13] - it is asked why Leaseholders are paying for such in the first instance - it states such to be paid for by [NAME_192] - the invoice for such This invoice was recharged to [NAME_13]; please see [233]. Refer to point 8 regarding recharging. All occupiers of [NAME_1] are benefitting from the security provided by the gate, therefore the management company is responsible for the cost of any repairs. Since the [NAME_10] development 145

78

is found at page 20 but the applicant needs to confirm such was actually paid and why is staff time spent on such and not invoiced for. Disputed £338 -proof of payment required and full explanation sought. was first developed, the costs for the maintenance of the access control and security systems benefitting the occupiers on site are paid and charged to the Leaseholders through the Management Company.

11 Page 17-18; Invoices 117889 and duplicate show £840 paid for work on Pontoons which are owned by [NAME_48], why are Leaseholders paying for such and why is staff time being spent on dealing with such? Disputed £840 -proof of payment required and full explanation required. Pages 17 [235] and 18 [234] are the original invoice sent and same invoice reworded. This relates to [NAME_52] which form part of the [NAME_10] site and are part of the Service charge. The current electric cabinet uses an electricity supply located by pontoon 3. This supply ceased and a new cabinet and supply was located in the ladies’ toilet block owned by [NAME_202]. They make no charge to the management company and therefore the service charge for electricity used by this gate [map ref. 11]. 145 12 Page 20 -

Invoice to [NAME_13] for £338.00. Why is staff time being spent on such and why was the invoice dealt with [NAME_9] and its agent taking up time and resources? Disputed £338.00 -proof of payment required

and

full explanation required. See answer to point 10. 145 13 Page 23 shows an invoice 11930 for work carried out on [NAME_1] by [NAME_92] paid for by the Leaseholders service charge - no invoice to [NAME_192] found £81.90 as site was still in development and under their control and not handed over. Disputed £81.90 -proof of payment required and full explanation sought. All occupiers of [NAME_1] are benefitting from the security provided by the gate, therefore the management company are responsible for the cost of any repairs. Since the [NAME_10] development was first developed, the costs for the maintenance of the access control and security systems benefitting the occupiers on site are paid and charged to the Leaseholders through the Management Company [236]. 199

79

14 Page 25 shows an invoice from [NAME_92] for an emergency call out to put in place codes and re-sets for power outages, which should have already been in place, negligent management of site and unnecessary cost. £306. Will not pay, demonstrates bad management in not ensuring reset codes were available. £306. Due to staff holidays and a change in staff the codes could not be found. The system was returned to running order and a new system put in place. Unfortunately, sometimes errors will occur. 303 15 Page 29/30 shows an invoice for work done to a Bin Store -what is this cost for? Disputed £405.57 and £345.57. Page 29 [238] is the invoice for the quote at page 30 [239]. The bin store is located at [map ref. 15]. There was a wireless connection for the access control/lock system but the wireless link was only working intermittently due to interference from other frequencies of wireless objects. It was deemed prudent to replace with a wired connection to sort out the problem and provide a uninterrupted service. 204 16 Page 39 Invoice 124847 shows work done to a [NAME_107] - why is this a Leaseholder cost? Disputed £195. The [NAME_107] is part of the service charge and it required a new access control reader. 187 17 Page 42 Invoice 125221; shows work done to a [NAME_107] - why is this a Leaseholder cost? Disputed £318 See point 16 [241] [map ref. 11] 187 18 Page 44 shows a quotation sent to [COMPANY_8] for a cost for the [NAME_107] -why? Was this work done? Page [242] is other page of the quotation which was put through as an accrual on the 2015 service charge accounts. This work was completed in June 2016 and put through these accounts on page 27 & 28. See item 74 below for another query on same item. 169

80

19 Pages 45-65 shows costs incurred of £11,500 paid for constant repair work and updating of the CCTV System - this cost seems excessive and due to poor management and repair and maintenance plans - no other quotes were sought from other companies. The same contractor seems to be repairing the same items. In that costs seem to be constantly repairing faults on work already done by the same firm -why? This is poorly monitored and seems not checked. Why? £11,500 disputed. Page 45 is 2 new larger monitors(screens) due to increased CCTV cameras to monitor; the monies for this was accrued for in the 2014 service charge year which [NAME_58] did not pay towards. Page 46 is a trying to find the problems with the CCTV cameras losing connection. Page 47 is the cost of replacing the antenna to solve the problem which kept reoccurring from Page 46 item. Page 48 is the annual CCTV maintenance contract which covers routine visit to check and clean each camera onsite. Page 49 is the replacement of camera 5; the CCTV cameras are replaced on a rotation so that coverage is maintained. Page 50 is a worksheet. Page 51 Electrical connection issue in CCTV pole Electrician needed. Page 52 is a worksheet. Page 53 Electrician for page 51 issue. Page 54 Labour charge for loose Fuse. Page 55 Replacement power supply to camera 14. Page 56 Groundworks for new CCTV pole. Page 57 Resetting of encoder and decoder that ceased working following power cut. Page 58 worksheet. Page 59 Worksheet. Page 60 Replace Broken camera. Page 61 - 65 Quotations for work that is being accrued for in 2015 but will be spent in 2016. We have a process of walking the site and making sure all areas are covered by CCTV as more properties are built or trees grow etc. We look at issues this raises and build them into the next years budget or accrue for in the year if monies are available. Previous companies have been used to supply CCTV and access control services therefore we are aware of the costs of other companies. If another company supplies a CCTV camera then they would be responsible for connecting it to our system and providing cover going forward. This 151

81

has proven in the past to be less cost effective as often systems do not connect to each other simply and more work is involved. 20 Pages 80-95 - are invoices for a contract hire car for security to use. The applicant asked for others quotes sought at the time of purchase, as the cost was high in comparison to other identical vehicles by £132 per month - no explanation provided. Car sear covers were invoiced twice in a period of 4 months -why? Car is too expensive for use and compared to other quotes at time the applicant has been able to procure at that time. Please provide other quotes obtained at the time for such a major financial commitment to the service charge funds. All Rental invoices disputed, and reduction of cost sought by 30% and reimbursed into service charge of some £840 plus vat. [NAME_10] were turned down for a lease car from 4 leasing companies due to its accounts making no profit at a year end therefore no credit history. This has limited our lease company to [NAME_140] who we have a relationship with and a credit history. This lease was taken out in July 2014, before [NAME_58] was a leaseholder, and was based on 15000 miles per annum. [NAME_298] quotes were at a later date and, in our opinion, could only be based on low miles per annum and on personal contract hire. He has never provided the quotes he obtained. Car seat covers were bought in January 2015 at a cost of £8.34 and were purchased again in April 2015 at the same cost. The car is in use 24 hours a day with staff being in and out of it many times a shift; therefore they wear and split. [NAME_211] has been unable to lease vehicles due to it being a not-for-profit company [244], except from Aviva, with whom [NAME_211] already enjoys a commercial relationship. [NAME_211] is unable to comment on the quotes obtained by the applicant without sight of them. The car seat 237

82

covers cost £8.34 and needed replacing.

21 Page 91 - The applicant asked [NAME_46] to qualify whom they sought car insurance quotes from - none supplied. Savings could have been made at the time of £224. Disputed 763.38. [NAME_142] are the insurance brokers used by [COMPANY_76]. The brokers obtained quotations from the market and advised as to the best value and best offer for [COMPANY_76] [245]. 244 22 Page 154-156 - £615 paid for a fitness policy for security - why? Security have been advised they must not engage or chase anyone involved with criminal activity. Why were solicitors employed to provide a draft policy for fitness tests? Disputed £615. As we told [NAME_58] previously, and again during his complaint to the Property Ombudsman,

the management agents are not employment solicitors hence why they did not formulate the policy; they worked with the solicitors and health and safety advisers to draw up following advice from the management company’s health and safety advisers. The policy needed to be reconciled against discrimination law and employment law and [NAME_212] issues; the management company does not undertake such specialist work itself. There is no legal obligation for the management company to have a fitness policy, but they do have a duty of care to employees to make sure that they have a reasonable level of fitness to complete their job. It is a term of their employment that they must pass a fitness test. 152 23 Pages 157/160/163/164/167/170/173/178/17 9/186/190//194 - why have leaseholders paid through the service charge £2,880 for Health and safety service retainer? What was it for, what other quotes were sought? Disputed £2,880. [NAME_148] were employed by the Management Company to provide [NAME_212] advice to the company. They were paid a retainer, to provide advice, produce audits/ policies and to carry out regular visits to the site. Within this fee, they carried out the fitness testing. 248

83

24 Pages180/187 - whom are [COMPANY_299] - why do you use them - have they been suitably checked - are they the value for monies-what other quotes obtained? Disputed £132. [NAME_97] provide mobile security patrols when the staff rota is unable to place 2 security officers on a night shift due to holidays and sickness. The cost of employing [NAME_98] to carry out the mobile patrols is significantly cheaper than employing a further security officer to work the shift. 153 25 Why are leaseholders paying for GP Report? Disputed £94.30 A staff member had an operation in 2015 and before he resumed work with us. We asked for a medical report to make sure that he was fit to return to work in a security officer’s role. We have to pay for this medical report. 250 26 Pages 195 - West Lindsey Council Rates for £2,880 - please advise the areas the Rates covers? Please confirm this rateable bill does not include areas owned by any other third party. Disputed £2,880 The rates bill is for the office, as detailed on the bill. This is for the store used by the ground staff to store all equipment used by them [map ref. 26]. 253 27 Pages 197 - Invoice from [NAME_213] for £70.48; why are the management company purchasing expensive toilet paper and hand towel and who is it for? Please confirm how this was monitored and whether any supplies were used by [COMPANY_135]? Disputed £70.48. These items are for use by staff and visitors to the security office only. The security staff monitor the levels as they do the cleaning and replenishment and inform [NAME_214] when more need ordering.

304 28 Pages 196-217 It is noted £2,842.43 was spent on fuel, coffee, tea and sugar from the most expensive locations - deli's and Co-op - why was no attempt made to reduce costs, by good and diligent management by buying wholesale and from the nearest supermarket of Morrisons or Tesco rather than the [NAME_300] the most expensive- this shows lack of due diligence and monitoring within Management - savings of 20% could have been made of this cost in relation to using wholesalers and other fuel suppliers; saving £567.

56. Please confirm how this was monitored and whether any supplies were used by As we told [NAME_58] previously, and again during his complaint to the Property Ombudsman, the co-op petrol station on [ADDRESS] is used because it is the closest to [NAME_10]. This means that the member of staff who has to go and buy fuel is away from [NAME_10] for the shortest amount of time. Buying from a supermarket petrol station would mean that they would have to be away for a longer time and more petty cash would need to be kept on site. This is not viable as it is more difficult to draw cash from a client bank account. The dividend points are used to buy tea, coffee or sugar as they were on 257

84

[COMPANY_135]? Disputed £2,872.43. receipts.

To support the local businesses on site, it was agreed that milk would be purchased from the deli. The staff on site are best placed to order the milk. Provisions began being bought via the internet in bulk in 2016.

29 Page 236/237/238/239/240 - Invoices for fire alarm check and other works between Security Office and [NAME_162]. Did the [NAME_162] share this cost or did the leaseholders bear the full cost? Disputed £1,190.74. Page 236 [415] was to check the links and it was discovered that there were none. Page 237 [416] is the worksheet. Page 238 [417] is for servicing the fire alarm located in [NAME_207] office only. Page 239 [418] servicing of [NAME_207] fire extinguishers. Page 240 [419] linking of Fire Alarm Panels as per page 236 As the offices are on top of each other it was a Health & Safety requirement to link them together. Half the cost of this was recovered from [NAME_215] and paid into our bank March 2016 (see [276] & 2016 accounts) 260 30 Page 241/247 - which office has Air conditioning and how many units within - insofar as I am aware that would only be security office, and such is expensive -normal quotes are 125 for inspection of two units - what quotes were obtained? Disputed £192. The security office has air conditioning units which provide both cold and hot air so are a heating and cooling system. We have a contract for servicing of these units twice a year. [NAME_157] have carried out the servicing of the units over a number of years. The cost is competitive and the service that they provide has always been an acceptable standard. 259 31 Page 246 & 249- it seems odd [NAME_241] charge for a first aid course -where is the original suppliers cost - whom are these two individuals - the course as such is expensive - normal quotes are £75 per person In Lincoln for a full day course - what [NAME_216] paid on their credit card as [NAME_207] could not get credit to pay for the course. All staff were grounds maintenance operatives. [NAME_216] organised the first aid training on behalf of the Management Company. The price paid 264

85

quotes were obtained? Disputed £450. reflected the course that we required, and fitted in with the staff rota. It may have been possible to find a cheaper course, but if we had to pay overtime to the staff, it would have been considerably more expensive. 32 Page 251 -Invoice from [COMPANY_301] for £455.40 this seems expensive please provide quotes obtained at the time. Disputed £455.40. For jobs this small, alternative quotes are not sought. There were 4 individual jobs on this invoice [277]/ [map ref. 32]. 271 33 Page 264 - This invoice from [NAME_104] for £102 states a diffuser was replaced on the [NAME_70] on 18-3-15 - to which [NAME_70] did it apply - as it is documented the [NAME_70] lights were not working at all throughout 20 14/ 15/ 16/17. Disputed £102. We must assume you mean page 254 [276]. This invoice was to "repair lights at the foot of the stairs in the security office and external light above the security office entrance door, To replace the diffuser on the [NAME_70], carried out on the 18/3/15, to replace one 28 watt 2d lamp and start, one 2pin pl lamp" Therefore was for 3 jobs. The [NAME_70] is located at [map ref. 33]. 305 34 Page 256 to 259 -Invoice from [NAME_48] to [COMPANY_8]; it is noted that rent is paid by [NAME_9] - what is it for - please provide lease or rental agreement - what does it cover in terms of repairing and maintenance? Which specific building and area does it cover? When is the rent reviewed, when was it last reviewed? Is the rent commercially viable and [NAME_39]? When was such last valued? Disputed £15,360. There is a lease between [NAME_77], [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_76] for the use of the security office and for the use of the grounds store. A copy of the lease is attached [279]. The rent was last reviewed on 1st August 2016. 254

86

35 Pages 260-271 show charges of £500 for an estate manager per month and £6,000 quarterly for Management fees via invoices from [NAME_216], when were these last reviewed to ensure value for monies, why is there an extra charge for a "Staff Estate Manager "what

role and responsibilities does it entail? Disputed £36,000. Pages 260 - 271 [430 - 440] are for supply of an Estate Manager, as agreed with the directors of [NAME_207], by [NAME_214] in addition to their fee for managing the service charge. Previously an Estate Manager had been employed at a higher cost. When he left in 2010, [NAME_214] took on this role too at a lesser cost. This fee pays for managing the on-site staff directly employed by [NAME_207], dealing with leaseholder applications and overseeing the day to day management issues. Struggling to see where you are reaching £36,000. These invoices total £7,200 for the year (incl VAT). The management fee is also included on some of these invoices which you are disputing at point 69. 278 36 Pages 305-316 - Please advise what the Anglian water Bills cover in terms of usage, the applicant has seen no bills to [COMPANY_218] whom accessed main water for [NAME_1] Development or the large water feature constructed within -why? How is water worked out for [NAME_48]? Disputed £1,351.45. Pages 305-316 [441 - 452] show water bills for the security office and for the several stores. [NAME_207] pays the bills for the security office. It also pays the bills for the stores that are not part of common parts and recharges to [NAME_202], as per pages 307, 310, 313 and 316, for the bill less the submeter reading taken from [NAME_207] grounds store. As you will see from the amounts, no water supply was made by [NAME_207] for [NAME_1] Development. 256 37 Page 353 - Invoice from [NAME_216] to [COMPANY_8]; where is the Deep-water sign located? Disputed £11.76. This was purchased on [NAME_214] credit card online and recharge to [NAME_207]. It is located in Ellison's Quay [299] [map ref. 37]. 188 38 Pages 353 to 390 show invoices from [NAME_109], which when compared to other wholesalers for the same equipment are sometimes 30% more expensive - why? Per example on Page 365 a digging spade is purchased for £39.96; a digging spade can be purchased online for £15 -why is this not checked before purchasing? We have purchased cheap equipment previously and it is not best value. [NAME_109] also offers us a credit account which means we are given credit to purchase and as previously said we do not have unlimited access to cash. The grounds staff work with these tools on a daily basis. 173

87

a. Diesel purchased from [NAME_302] - is this red diesel and please confirm other quotes were obtained? Yes, it is the red diesel used in the tractor. Quotes were not obtained as it makes sense to use a supplier on site, as to leave site would result in additional costs. 173 b. Gloves purchased from [NAME_302] are manifestly expensive they charge £7.50 for one box of 8; latex gloves containing 200 can be bought for £9.99 plus vat - why is this not checked - service charge costs through failure to monitor, are we using the most expensive supplier? It is £7.50 per box of 100 not 8. The invoice says 8 x boxes of latex gloves. 173 c. All costs disputed as not being monitored and incurring unnecessary expensive - reduction of overall cost of £3813.24 sought of some 25% equating to £953.51 credit back to service charge. Costs are monitored but it is unrealistic to check every purchase. If they are out purchasing fuel, they may visit a DIY store to purchase small items, which they pay for personally, and are then reimbursed.

This is not sustainable. We purchase where we can get credit accounts and these may not always be the cheapest but they are local companies that offer good service to equipment. We have to purchase certain items through specialist companies because they are for Health and Safety such as spraying suits, online they will only accept credit card. Due to [NAME_58] constant complaints about [NAME_214] recharging [NAME_207] and about transparency, [NAME_214] have withdrawn this facility to [NAME_207] and [NAME_207] have had to get their own credit card to offer best value by purchasing online. This now costs [NAME_207] a card fee of £25.20 per month but is the only way to purchase items online or to purchase fuel since a fuel card was refused several times due to credit rating. 173 39 Pages 392 - Invoice from [NAME_168] totalling £2,664; where was this work carried out and what other quotes was obtained? Disputed £2,664. [ADDRESS], Ellison's Quay and The [NAME_51]. The blocks were loose and required removing and relaying due to [NAME_212] risk of trips [300] [map ref. 39]. 271

88

40 Page 393 - Invoice from [NAME_216] for £171.42 -where is the Deep- Water Sign located and where is the original receipt for the jackets as they again, seem very expensive due to online quotes by 20%? Disputed £171.42. See point 37. The Hi Vis coats were purchased online and are 7 in 1 so can be used in all weathers. The sign is located at [map ref. 37]. 186, 188 41 Page 394 - Invoice from [NAME_168] for £3,816 for painting a [NAME_23] - which one? Why are you using a ground works firm to paint a bridge - please provide other quotes obtained . Whom does the Bridge belong to, as it is described as a [NAME_23]? Disputed £3,816. As we told [NAME_58] previously, and again during his complaint to the Property Ombudsman, we asked several companies to quote for painting the bridge but they would not quote because it involved hanging from ropes over water. Our builder had a painter who he subcontracts to who would undertake the work. The cost reflects the dangerousness and difficulty of the work. The footbridge over [NAME_52] entrance forms part of the [NAME_10] development and is the responsibility of [NAME_207] to maintain. [301] [map ref. 41]. 272 42 Page 395 - Invoice from [NAME_110] for £240 - why are we using a contractor to clean out composting bins - when there is already Landscaping staff on the payroll to do such work and have the equipment to do so- how was the compost used which residents leave to be composted? Disputed £240. [NAME_110] removes the items with a mechanical digger. Unfortunately, residents keep putting items that are not compostable within the bins which means it cannot be used on site as it is contaminated. 174 43 Page 396 - Invoice 1457 from [NAME_326] - where was the fence repair? Disputed £240. The fence is located at [map ref. 43] [302]. 189 44 Page 397 - Invoice from [NAME_216] - for £235.79 - where is the suppliers invoice as this is expensive by some 28%? Disputed £235.79. Paid for on [NAME_214] credit card and recharged to [NAME_207] [303 & 304]. As we told [NAME_58] previously, and again during his complaint to the Property Ombudsman, £196.49 + VAT was paid because it included the pole and fixings which the cheaper ones do not. It is also green in colour which are generally more expensive than the red 205

89

ones.

45 Pages 398 to 405 - Repairs to Lighting - is this the most cost- effective way for Leaseholders -the repair bill is £5,893.20 simply for replacing light bulbs and includes work on [NAME_52] pontoons - what other quotes were obtained and where is the invoice to [NAME_89] for works carried out on the Pontoon and to [NAME_13] for works carried out on [NAME_1]? Disputed £5,893.20. There is no cheap way of replacing street light bulbs. Due to health and safety, the electrician is unable to go up a ladder and replace bulbs. We must now hire a cherry picker and we replace when we have enough broken on site to warrant the cost of hiring. We have looked to purchase a cherry picker, but we must then make sure our insurance covers it which is a high cost and that all people who use have proper training. This again makes it too difficult and expensive. Page 402 [501] is a sheet that security mark defects they note around site on. Anything for pontoon is passed to [NAME_52] to deal with; these items are not included on [NAME_104] invoices. 175 46 Page 406 & 417 /149- Invoice by [NAME_219] for £208.80, £102, £180; Whom owns the Service Storm water pump and where is it located? It seems the invoice is for [COMPANY_208]? Disputed £490.80. The storm water pumps serve the whole of [NAME_10] Development, the invoice refers to them as the [NAME_13] as this is the original installation address. The cost of the maintenance is to be paid for by [COMPANY_8] as if these pumps were not maintained then there is a risk of flooding to the whole of the [NAME_10] development [305] [map ref. 46] 190 47 Page 408 - Invoice for £400 from [NAME_221]. What is the Parkers Drain and where is it located? Disputed £400. The drain is located at [map ref. 47] and protects the whole site from flooding. [NAME_221] are responsible for keeping the Parkers drain extension clear. If these works were not under taken there is a risk of flooding to [NAME_10] and the surrounding areas. This is an annual contract with [NAME_221] and is carried out by them so to ensure the flood defences of 190

90

Lincoln are maintained.

48 Page 410-this is an invoice for £13,824 for a [NAME_111]- on enquiring at the time this was some £1,700 more expensive than other prices obtained - please provide quotes obtained at the time. Only willing to pay the cost less £1,700. As we told [NAME_58] previously, and again during his complaint to the Property Ombudsman, you are not taking into account invoice 412 [310] which is a credit note for the px of the previous tractor of £8400. This price also includes a new cutter deck at a cost of £2484 (£2070 + VAT) therefore a cost of £2450 to change the tractor was acceptable. We did not obtain additional quotes because we have other equipment that fits this make of tractor and would mean changing that equipment too. 177 49 Pages 413 and 414 are invoices for bike shelters; on enquiring at the time this was some £1,100 more expensive than other prices obtained - please provide quotes obtained at the time. Only willing to pay the cost less £1,100. Due to the grant from Lincolnshire CC, there was no cost to the Management Company [311 - 313]. 206 50 Pages 415 -Invoice for Rear Roller petrol mower from [NAME_109]- please provide quotes obtained at the time. Disputed £1,435.98. We received quotes from [NAME_131] and [NAME_222]. [NAME_109] was the cheaper of the local companies that would invoice [NAME_9] [314]. 173 51 Pages 416-418 works invoiced from [NAME_168] for £697.44 and £1,050- please provide quotes obtained at the time. Disputed £1,747.14. These were costs in connection with point 49. Due to the grant, there was no cost to the Management Company. 276 52 Pages 437 - Invoice for Commercial Insurance at £7,770.82- please provide quotes obtained at the time - quote seems compared to others obtained 22%

more expensive. Disputed £7,770.82. [NAME_142] are the insurance brokers used by [NAME_207]. The brokers obtained quotations from the market and advised as to the best value and best offer for [NAME_207]. The insurance is for the equipment owned by the Management Company including the CCTV/Access Control equipment and PL insurance for the common parts of 244

91

the site.

53 Pages 438/439 - Invoice from [NAME_48] to the management company for proportion of insuring [NAME_23] building, which part of the property mentioned in the Insurance is relevant to [NAME_9]. Disputed. Under the terms of the lease between [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_223], the Mooring Company is responsible for insuring the building and they then recharge the proportion of the security office and landscape store. 255 54 Page 444 & 446-lnvoice from [NAME_307] for £540 for work carried out as per quote for "[NAME_48]" and invoice to [NAME_48]-what work was done and where specifically? Please provide proof of payment and why staff time spent dealing with such: Disputed £540. As you state, 444 is the invoice from B&B and 446 is the monies received once invoiced to [NAME_202]. No charge to [NAME_207] [317].

145 55 Pages 447 to 452 - These are invoices for skip hire - can you please advise what they are used for and where located, as the cost is £1,200 per year - - please provide other quotes obtained at the time and where skips were used. Please confirm not used for [NAME_48] waste. Disputed £1,200. The skips are used by [NAME_303] for the removal of the waste that cannot be composted. Originally sited behind Marine Studios, the skip is now located within [NAME_52] [320 - 328] [map ref. 55].

207 56 Pages 453 -454-4558-459-461-462- 464-467-493-508-535-543- 590-628- 644 are to [NAME_48], Pages 565-580- 617-636 are to [COMPANY_208] and other invoices for [COMPANY_224], for various works carried out, in relation to invoices for landscaping and cleaning toilets, which are, of serious concern, in that the following areas seem to exist; of poor accounting, manifestly undercharging and lack of correct hours spent. To bring an income into the service charge accounts, the landscaping staff maintain the landscaped areas for [NAME_48], [NAME_13], and various leaseholders. They also carry out the cleaning of the toilet blocks. In doing so, it reduces the service charge by bringing an income into the fund, which provides a cost saving to all leaseholders. By providing this service it also ensures that leaseholders/residents comply with the landscaping clause within the lease. [NAME_202], [NAME_23] and [NAME_13] are charged an hourly 146

92

rate for work done. This hourly rate was worked out based on an average of the 4 staff members hourly rate because any one of the four could be completing the work on a given day.

a. The labour rate charged for [NAME_48], [NAME_89] and [COMPANY_71] is £9.32 plus 0.85p per hour "Employment costs the costs do not include materials used, petrol for the lawnmowers, weed killer, wear and tear or any other cost. The charge per hour is £10.17. Materials for cleaning are provided by [NAME_202]. The work on [NAME_52] is weeding so requires basic tools only.

The work to [NAME_13] uses mower plus basic hand tools.

146

b. Reviewing the invoices to [NAME_225] in the 2017 accounts, they paid for the same services provided to the companies above but at a rate of £26.25 per hour; a 158.11% difference. [NAME_225] are charged a flat rate for the contract agreed.

146 c. Residents whom have their grass cut have small gardens and they are cut in 15 minutes, but residents and leaseholders are charged £ 10 for-15- 20 minutes work. All Leaseholders are charged the same amount. If differing amounts were charged, it would increase the administration costs involved, and would make it cost prohibitive therefore reducing the income to the service charge which is credited against the staffing costs. 146 d. The national employed contract rate in 2015 as per the Association of National Landscapers contractors rate was £15.50 per hour. This excludes use

of

any equipment/petrol, pesticides or any other materials used in the course of the work, like gloves, bags. The landscaping staff are paid a salary.

146

93

e. A normal contractors rate including use of equipment and charging for materials is £35/40 per hour. We are not providing this service to make a substantial profit. If we were to charge a rate at that proposed by [NAME_58], it is likely that the leaseholder would employ an external contractor, which would remove all income from the fund. Resulting in an increase in costs to all leaseholders. 146 f. [NAME_9] has been manifestly undercharging

[COMPANY_305] and [COMPANY_135] to benefit those directors and their respective companies, - if they had been charged even at the rate charged to Arbour Living -the income received

from

[COMPANY_305] would have been substantial and [NAME_39] in relation to other companies. Refer to point 56

146 g. [NAME_89] has also been manifestly undercharged. Refer to point 56. 146 h. Notwithstanding the above, it is clear and evident that the rates charged to [COMPANY_71]/[NAME_48] and [NAME_89], do not cover the costs of materials, in essence will not cover overall staff costs per hour and are operating at a loss to benefit these companies. Refer to point 56.

146 i. [COMPANY_135] were invoiced for 527 hrs at £10.17 per hour a total of some £5,359.59 -it should have been charged at £25 per hour which would have produced an income of £13,175 a shortfall of some £7,815.41 plus vat. £7,8415.41 plus vat should be credited to reduce the service bill for 2015. Refer to point 56.

146

94

j. [COMPANY_71] were invoiced approximately 95 hrs at £10.17 per hour a total of some £966.15 -it should have been charged at £25 per hour, which would have produced an income of £2,375; a short fall of some £1,408.85 plus vat. £1,408.85 plus vat should be credited to reduce the service bill for 2015. Refer to point 56

146 k. [NAME_89] were invoiced approximately 87 hrs at £10.17 per hour a total of some £884.79 -it should have been charged at £25 per hour, which would have produced an income of £2,175; a short fall of some £1,290.21 plus vat. £1,290.21 plus vat should be credited to reduce the service bill for 2015. Refer to point 56.

146 I. There is also a concern that through bad management 709 hrs has been spent working for these third parties, subsidised by the leaseholder with no advantage to leaseholders and more likely a loss to service charge costs, and other areas of the development are being neglected or delayed, facilitating work for these companies. [NAME_73] have complained to the applicant in conversation, they are short staffed and often behind with work. We employ 3 full time and 1 part time grounds maintenance staff. The works carried out for Leaseholders does not affect the service that is provided to the whole of [NAME_10], and in fact we get many compliments as to the level of service that is provided by the team.

146 m. There is no charges for wear and tear of equipment or any material used; such as petrol, and other garden equipment and ancillary items

to

[COMPANY_305], [NAME_48] and [NAME_89]. It is evident service charge funds are funding these ancillary costs for third parties, as aforementioned at a considerable loss. Refer to point 56.

146

95

n. The [NAME_226] acting for the respondents has affirmed there are no contracts that exist in his letter of 10-9-18, for the provision of the landscaping services by [NAME_9], which demonstrate clear poor management and commercial awareness, by the Respondents. Any party instructing the landscaping staff agree to the charges and are charged monthly in arrears. They sign a sheet to agree to our payment terms and to confirm which type of cut they would like i.e. single lawn, double lawn, holiday cut only.

146 o. There are no charges for work done by security or provision of CCTV services for these companies. [NAME_58] seems to not understand how a service charge or apportionment works. All leaseholders have been charged for all aspects of running the site through their service charge apportionment which he has been issued with. 146 p. It is clearly evident that leaseholders are subsidising through the service charge considerable third- party works done, which is being carried out for the sole benefit of the respondents separate companies, at a considerable cost and detriment. Other parties also benefit from the poor management, which will always exist due to the conflicts of interest that will arise through the directors of the management company and other third-party companies acting for the self interest and financial benefit. The matter deserves searching scrutiny by the court, of what is actually happening within the management of the Management company and its actions in this regard. Third party works are charged separately and were worked out based on an average rate of pay. We gain more if an apprentice is doing the work and gain less if the team leader is doing. They could employ someone themselves at minimum wage to do the work and we would lose this additional income stream and would in turn increase the amount payable by each individual leaseholder. As referred to at 6, the service charge apportionments are reviewed annually, and take into account the services that are provided by the Management Company.

146 57 Page 652 - Invoice from [NAME_168] for £750 for repair of a signboard - which one and what quotes were obtained? Disputed £750. This is the noticeboard located on ‘The Landings’ [328] [map ref. 57].

271 58 Page 654- Invoice from [NAME_124] for repair of damaged signs for £1,035. What other quotes were obtained, and which actual signs were involved? Disputed £1,035. These are the signs located at the site entrance which more than half the metal was taken by thieves [329] [map ref. 58]. We do not know when this happened but was between bi-monthly 208

96

site inspections.

59 Pages 691 Invoice from [NAME_216] - why are the Leaseholders paying for extra Independent Management advice -should this not be contained within the existing charges charged by [NAME_216] - what is the advice specifically for and whose actual advice was provided within [NAME_216]. Disputed £240. This is the charge made by the independent consultant surveyor for calculating the annual apportionments and recharged by [NAME_216].

281 60 Page 694 - Please explain the invoice from [COMPANY_71] to [NAME_9] for £210. Disputed £210. These are the legal fees in regard to access rights to the pumping station [330]. 293 61 Page 696 - Invoice for £594 from [NAME_185]. Please explain what this invoice refers to? Disputed £594.00. Preparation of plans for [NAME_207] by adding street lighting and CCTV positions and then providing an up to date handover plan. 306 62 Page 697 -Invoice from [NAME_241] for debt chasing letters for £1,980.00. Please explain why Leaseholders pay extra for normal management duties? Disputed £1,980. [COMPANY_229] were instructed for debt collection. They charged £50 per letter and the success rate in obtaining payment was limited. [NAME_216] charge £15 per letter and have recovered all but [NAME_58]’s debts. 278 63 Page 698 - Invoice from [NAME_144] for £125, what is it exactly for and why is it paid to the wife/relative of the Director [NAME_198]? What other quotes were obtained for the work? Disputed £125.00. It is for professional advice in regard to lease breaches. Previously this was charged to us at £250 per hour as per invoice 699. This showed a decrease in cost of 50%. It is irrelevant that she is the daughter of one of the directors. [COMPANY_172] provides non-reserved legal advice and assistance. The majority of work in relation to [NAME_211] is carried out by [NAME_33].

[NAME_230] qualified as a solicitor and was an equity partner until she retired from [ADDRESS] practice to establish [COMPANY_172]. Her specialism is property law. She 292

97

was previously head of commercial and residential property at a regional firm. She has over twenty years’ experience. [NAME_33] qualified as a solicitor in 2008 and specialises in corporate, commercial and employment law. He was previously an equity partner in a regional law firm and has been head of litigation, employment and corporate departments. The charge out rate for work in respect of [NAME_211] is £125 + VAT, far below the rate of an equivalent fee earner in a traditional firm. The saving for leaseholders in respect of legal work generally is around 50%.

64 Page 699 - Please explain this cost by [NAME_231] for what in essence seems to be work already paid for to [NAME_144] in page 698 above? Disputed £300. This is not the same work as invoice 698. Refer to the detail on the invoice.

245 65 Page 700 - Invoice from [NAME_144] for £250 for professional advice, please affirm her qualifications and why she was chosen to give advice and what is it exactly for and why is it paid to the wife/relative of the Director [NAME_175]? What other quotes were obtained for the work? Disputed £250. To provide legal advice on a lease breach as the invoice states at half the cost of other solicitors.

292 66 Page 702 & 709 - [NAME_231] for £2,918.68 and £1,698.48; was this prosecuted as a successful breach on this Page and Page 709 -it suggests some £4,600 was spent on legal fees -without recovery? Disputed. As we told [NAME_58] previously, and again during his complaint to the Property Ombudsman, there was a lease breach by a resident which took place in May 2015.

Following numerous letters, we obtained legal advice which then resulted in solicitors being instructed. Proceedings were issued in the Lincoln County Court. The leaseholder initially sought to defend those proceedings but then accepted that the lease breach must be remedied. The leaseholder complied with the Management Company’s 298

98

subsequent instructions and the matter was successfully resolved.

67 Page 706 - It is noted £35 was paid for a registration of a data controller but no written privacy statement existed at the time, as affirmed in correspondence from [NAME_66] of [NAME_216], in a communication dated 07-08-18, in which she confirmed; there was no written privacy policy statement in place before June 2018 - upon which the court should be aware the Information Commissioners Office is now investigating such breach. Disputed £35. [NAME_207] have been registered with the ICO as far as the current accounts go back which is, electronically, 2008. This fee is £35.

209 68 Page 708 - Invoice from [NAME_144] for £187.50. Please explain what is it exactly for and why is it paid to the wife/relative of the Director [NAME_175]? What other quotes were obtained for the work? Moreover, why as the relative of [NAME_79] been instructed to address an issue re Parking and access to [NAME_48] a company he is a director of, there is a clear conflict of interest. Disputed £187.50. Providing legal advice on [NAME_207] parking issues and drafting a parking undertaking to stop those who fail to adhere to the rules. The parking undertaking is within the leaseholders’ handbook.

292 69 Pages 713 to 715 - Invoices from [NAME_216] for 2015 period management fees. When were these fully reviewed? Disputed. The Management Fees are for the day to day running of the site to include the preparation and issue of the service charge budgets, invoices and end of year accounts, collects service charge payments, arranges and manages the provision of services having due regard to the budget and obligations of the Management Company. [NAME_214] fees are reviewed annually as part of the [NAME_207] budgeting process and no increase has 278

99

been made since 2008.

2016

70 Page 1-2- Invoices from [NAME_216] for £264.00 and £180. Why are leaseholders paying SIA Licences for security staff within the service charge - [NAME_232], [NAME_235] for whom the licences were paid, how long did they stay in employment with the company? Will not pay £444. Under the terms of the employment contract, [NAME_9] pay for the SIA licences for the security staff. If the security staff leave, then they are to reimburse a portion of the license fee depending on the time worked after renewal. The SIA course for [NAME_238] is due to the fact that despite advertising for a full-time security guard with the required SIA license, it was not possible to find a suitable candidate, therefore the management company paid the costs of training. 138 71 Page 6 - Invoice for £7 28.36 from [NAME_92]; why is repair work being done to [NAME_1], at this time, which had not been handed over by [NAME_13] and why are [NAME_9] staff and its agent dealing with -why is such not being dealt and paid for by [NAME_192]? Will not pay £728.36. The main gates into [NAME_1] have been damaged as detailed on the invoice. All occupiers of [NAME_1] are benefitting from the security provided by the gate, therefore the management company are responsible for the cost of any repairs. Since the [NAME_10] development was first developed, the costs for the maintenance of the access control and security systems benefitting the occupiers on site are charged to the Management Company. Rails were put in as part of the repairs to try and avoid this happening in the future. 200

100

72 Page 21 - Invoice from [NAME_100] for £11,760 -

please provide the alternative quotes to affirm this was the best price - I have had other contractors give prices some £3,000 cheaper? Disputed £11,760. This is for the ducting (CCTV) at the [NAME_107] [576] [map ref. 72/73]. Due to new laws the electronics needed to changed and the only way for them to work effectively required moving the cabling to the other side of the road. This is for cutting ducting through the road surfaces. £4000 was charged to access control for this. The remaining £5800 was for moving the fibre optic cabling for CCTV on [ADDRESS] outside Ellison's Quay and [ADDRESS] to the other side of the road so to add an additional CCTV camera. This was charged to CCTV and the invoice put into both sections as is good accounting practice. 154 73 Page 24- Invoice for £81.00 by [NAME_92]- again work done on Quays, on a site not officially handed over - why are service charge funds paying for such and staff of the management agent dealing with - where is the invoice to [NAME_192] for such? Will not pay £81. This was a vehicle colliding with the gates therefore not covered by any guarantees or warranties.

200 74 Page 28 - It is noted there is another Invoice by [NAME_92] for work done to the [NAME_107] to the value of £2,714.99 on - is this an actual Leaseholders service charge cost? Disputed £2,714.99. See point 18 above - [NAME_23].

169 75 Page 37 - Invoice 137747 by [NAME_92] for £1,440 - does this invoice relate to any work done on [NAME_1] - what other quotes were obtained? Disputed £1,440. The [NAME_92] invoice is for the maintenance of all access control and CCTV systems serving the whole of [NAME_10] Development. 155 76 Pages 41-42-43- Why is [NAME_46] dealing with issues re [NAME_52] and accident damage - the costs associated with this and the fees paid to [NAME_216] in Management charges, should not be used to deal with this or there should be a charge to [NAME_10] A vehicle damaged [NAME_52] gates which are maintained and monitored by the management company [577] [map ref. 72]. [NAME_52] pay a service charge which reflects the above, therefore if any damage is caused to any of the access control equipment including gates, it will be dealt with by 187

101

[NAME_51] or [NAME_52] for such work undertaken -please explain? Disputed. [COMPANY_8]. 77 Pages 65 - Invoice 131762 - a costs of £2,892 to relocate a camera - please provide other quotes obtained at the time. Disputed £2,892.00. [NAME_58] refers to page 65 however, invoice 131762 is actually page 53. The cost of £2892 details the cost in regard to the relocation of the Ellison Quays camera. Alternative quotes were not obtained as [NAME_92] provided the maintenance to [COMPANY_8]. From past experience, asking an alternative contractor to quote is not possible as the equipment used by alternative companies does not always correspond with the equipment we have on site and any small cost saving is out weighted by the additional costs in configuring such equipment. Monies accrued in 2015 therefore no charge to service charge in 2016. The applicant is disputing items twice. 156 78 Page 55 -Invoice 131760 for installation of Camera at a cost on page 1 of £3,480.00 - where was such installed and where is page 2? - please provide other quotes obtained at the time. Disputed £3,480.00. Page 2 is solely the VAT breakdown [580]. As you can see, the supply and installation of a camera at a cost of £2900 + VAT equates to £3480. As referred to in point 77 an alternative quote was not obtained. Monies accrued in 2015 therefore no charge in 2016. 157 79 Page 56 - Why is there a duplicated invoice as per page 21 as above? See Point 72. 307 80 Page 57 - An invoice from [NAME_216] - for a Monitor - where was this provided and where is the original suppliers invoice and why not attached to such? Disputed £303.01. A monitor was required for the security office due to the failure of one of the monitors. The monitor was purchased by [NAME_241] on a credit card and the costs of such was recharged. 265 81 Pages 59-60 - Why are these invoices totalling £816.28 from [NAME_92] in June and April for the same amount for seemingly the same equipment invoiced twice? In April 2016 the Joystick for controlling the CCTV cameras failed, a replacement was installed. The second joystick was due to the first replacement being broken when a 158

102

Disputed £816.28. member of staff fainted. At the same time of installing the second joystick, they installed the monitor that had been purchased separately. 82 Pages 64-69 Is a quote for proposal of works to be carried out re CCTV Cameras from the supplier [NAME_92], whom after reviewing all invoices often attend to repair fittings, they had previously repaired and such seems unchecked, for work to a high value- please provide the other quotes you should have obtained? Disputed. These are accruals.

308 83 Pages 93-94-95-96-97-98-101-102 - are invoices for a rental car for security to use. The applicant asked for the quote sought at the time, as the cost was high in comparison to other identical vehicles by £132 per month - no explanation provided? Car too expensive for use and compared to other quotes at time. All Rental invoices disputed, and reduction of cost sought by 30% and reimbursed into service charge of some £840 plus vat. See point 20.

237 84 Page 103 - Car Insurance Invoice from [NAME_242] - please provide other quotes obtained at the time. Disputed £817.60. [NAME_142] are the insurance brokers used by [COMPANY_76]. The brokers obtained quotations from the market and advised as to the best value and best offer for [COMPANY_76]. There are 12 members of staff who require use of the vehicle and this needs to be taken into account when comparing quotations. 309 85 Pages 163-166-170-175-176-180-185- 190-194-198-202-203- paid to [NAME_148] again for fitness services £2,880 - that is manifestly excessive and an unnecessary cost - please fully justify this cost and what other quotes were obtained? Disputed £2,880. The invoices for [NAME_148] were for a monthly Health & Safety retainer at a cost of £200 per month. This was not for a fitness service. The retainer included the cost of providing all Health & Safety documentation including a Health & Safety Audit, Fire 248

103

Risk Assessment and producing staff documentation and carrying out the fitness testing of the security staff employed by [COMPANY_76]. 86 Page 164-165 - Invoice from [NAME_170] at £300. What does this Solicitors cost refer to of £300? Disputed £300 . These were for solicitors’ fees for employment settlement agreements. 299 87 Page 162-179-186-187-193-195-201 Re [NAME_97] -why have leaseholders through the service charge paid the sum of £3,396.90 extra for security in light of the already high costs of staff wages? Disputed £3,396.90. See point 24.

153 2016 Accounts:

88 Pages 208- The cost of some £250 spent on milk at a local deli is simply extravagant and wasteful use of leaseholders service charge funds and extremely poor management of costs- if milk and tea bags had been ordered from wholesalers a saving could have been made of £1 38 - why was this not managed properly? Disputed £250. It was agreed we would support a local business by purchasing milk from them.

Following a change of ownership, this became impossible as they would only accept cash payment therefore we decided to buy milk at the same time as fuel from Co-op to save journeys and money and they could be bought on account to aid cash flow. 257 89 Pages 245-246-251-252 - Are Invoices from [NAME_216] for items paid for by security staff- the applicant have noted the excuse such are paid for as the [COMPANY_338] does not facilitate a credit card, but the applicant has enquired and such Lloyds account does support a debit card, which can equally be used and provide transparency as there are no supplier invoices attached on these invoices to affirm base cost - such is poor management. Disputed £138.40. [NAME_207] bank account is managed by [NAME_214] and their directors are the only signatories on the client bank account. Client bank accounts cannot have a debit card and even if they could, it would be the directors of [NAME_214] that would be issued with them not [NAME_207]. [NAME_214] as managing agents are given the full support of [NAME_207] and as a professional company operate within the RICS client money guidelines as is evident by RICS three yearly inspections. 266 90 Page 253 - Invoice for £441 by [NAME_241] for linking of between the [NAME_162] and Security office fire alarm panels -did the [NAME_162] contribute to the cost? Disputed This is money paid into [NAME_207] accounts (a negative expense). See point 29. 260

104

£441.00.

91 Pages 257 to 260 - illustrate a common management problem creating unnecessary cost- in that there is a maintenance contract for servicing two air con units every 6 months - normally any contract provides yearly checks - so instead of £192 - these are unnecessary costs -yet bizarrely there is no regular maintenance contract for the lighting and CClV system which seems to have on-going issues and repairs for repairs already undertaken, there seems to be no usual 12 month warranty on works carried out thereby preventing duplicate costs, for work done on same repairs, already done some months ago - there seems to be no plan of checking these costs, but a mere acceptance -why? Disputed £534.91. See point 30.

259 92 Page 262 - Invoice from [COMPANY_301] for £3,127.20 for works carried out - please specify where such works carried out and please provide other quotes that should have been obtained at the time. Disputed £3127.20. Details of the works that were carried out are included on the invoice [581] [map ref. 92]. Items 1 and 2 were for works that were required following the [NAME_212]/FRA. Items 3 - 6 were for general maintenance items that had been picked up on an inspection of the site. This is an invoice for 6 individual items, one charged to management-int dec and repair and the remainder to roads-excluding maintenance and repair. 271 93 Page 261 & 263 -illustrates the issue raised in Point 84 above -On June 19 th [COMPANY_125] are called out to fix a overflow on a water heater at a cost of £72, then less than 3 months later, [NAME_104] are called out to attend the water heater and a cost of £206.27 is incurred in replacing the heater element, whereas the common sense approach would have been to contact the original [COMPANY_125] attended to replace the float valve. [NAME_104] attended to replace the element. These are two separate faults with the water heater.

210

105

contractor, [COMPANY_125], to investigate and perhaps the work would have been covered by guarantee. There is no real checking of matters, which would save unnecessary costs incurred. Disputed £206.27.

94 Pages 265 -268 - it is noted rent remains the same for the [NAME_48]. I refer to points 34 above. Disputed £15,630.00. See point 34.

254 95 Pages 269-276 - it is noted the fees remains the same from [NAME_216], re the Estate Manager fee; such is unjustified for the service provided - [NAME_29] insofar as the applicant and other residents have been concerned, has been the "Manager for [NAME_11]'s" at [NAME_216] prior to 2014 and to current times, with no increase on workload, as she has for some years, only worked 3 days a week at [NAME_216] and attends one morning a week for a few hours at the site. The services provided by the agent are not value for monies, represent poor management and poor customer service and never reviewed. Disputed £36,000. Refer to 35. If any queries or issues are raised outside of [NAME_30]'s working hours, these are dealt with either by the Security team or [NAME_66], or if it is an emergency then the Directors of the Management Company will act.

278 96 Pages 520 are re the water utility bills and the same questions are asked as previously herein on this utility bill; what the Anglian water Bills cover in terms of usage, the applicant has seen no bills to [COMPANY_218] whom accessed main water for [NAME_1] Development or the large water feature contracted within -why? How is water worked out for [NAME_48]? Disputed. It is assumed you mean page 320. See point 36 as the same scenario applies.

256 97 The applicant would like to qualify that all electricity bills paid for by service charge costs do not include any supply to any other third parties whatsoever? Pages 239 to 244 are all electricity bills for [NAME_207].

310

106

98 Page 331 -Rates Bill for £3,097.60 - to which area does this specifically cover? Disputed. See point 26.

253 99 Page 377-389 -390-391-400-420-424 are invoices from [NAME_216]. It is noted invoices from [NAME_241] are with no accompanying suppliers invoice to affirm actual cost. Costs seem excessive. Disputed £317.24 Pages 377 is an invoice bought on [NAME_214] credit card and recharged to [NAME_207]. Receipt can be supplied if required. We have some [582]. Pages 378 and 379 were items paid for by a staff member and reimbursed. Pages 389-391 & 400, 420 & 424 items bought on [NAME_214] credit card and recharged to [NAME_207]. 266 100 Page 384 - what are the flags mentioned in the invoice for and what

actual location? Disputed £32.50. The invoice was for the replacement of flags to be displayed on the flag pole sited at the end of [ADDRESS] [584] [map ref. 100]. 187 101 Page 386 - Invoice for £386 - please advise of other quotes and confirm what the sun screen is for? Disputed £386. The sun screen dispenser and sun screen were installed within the security office and is for the use of the security staff and landscaping staff due to the fact that they work predominately outdoors. 249 102 Page 421 - [NAME_168] for £475.20 - please provide alternative quotes which should have been obtained? Disputed £475.20. Due to the trip hazard established as part of bi-monthly inspection this work was deemed urgent. 271 103 Page 422 - [NAME_168] for £552.00 - please provide alternative quotes, which should have been obtained ? Disputed £552.00. See point 102.

271 104 Page 4213- [NAME_168] for £934.8 - please provide alternative quotes, which should have been obtained and also explain why this has not been invoiced to [COMPANY_71], as the site of [NAME_1] had not been handed over at that time. Disputed £934.80. See page 427 where part of this was reimbursed. The remainder was for works to repair fences around site.

271

107

105 Page 425 - Invoice by [COMPANY_105] for £2,254.44 - please provide alternative quotes, which should have been obtained and also explain why this was done and to which bollards in particular. Disputed £2,254.44. This was for the replacement of the bollards on the main roundabout on site. The bollards were replaced as it was a Health & Safety risk without these directional bollards.

175 106 Page 426 - Invoice from [COMPANY_323] for £1,803.60 for reline car park marking -please confirm where such was carried out and provide evidence of such. Also provide alternative quotes. Disputed £1,803.60. [COMPANY_323] were instructed to reline the main car park and reline the lining within [NAME_137].

211 107 Page 427 - [NAME_168] for £258 - please provide alternative quotes, which should have been obtained, and also explain why this has not been invoiced to [COMPANY_71] as the site of [NAME_1] had not been handed over at that time. Signs should be part of [COMPANY_71] cost. Will not pay £258. This is not a [NAME_168] invoice. This is an invoice to a company that damaged a [NAME_186] and is in the accounts as a negative expense.

311 108 Page 428 - Invoice from [COMPANY_101] for emptying old compost bays and re fit new timbers and steel for compost bays at a cost of £5,850.00- is manifestly excessive by £3,245. Please provide alternative quotes you should have obtained at the time. Disputed £5,845.00. We are unsure as to how [NAME_58] feels that it is manifestly excessive by £3245. [NAME_58] has not provided alternative quotations to support this figure.

179 109 Page 429 -Invoice from [NAME_124] for £99.62 - where are these compost bin signs? Disputed £99.62. The compost bins signs are located on the compost bins [586]. 212 110 Page 430 - why do you insert duplicate invoices into the accounts - can the applicant please qualify this has only been paid for once? Disputed. There are duplicate invoices within the accounts due to the fact that the charges are split between different headings. We can confirm that the invoice has only been paid once, however, it has been accounted for in different areas of the service charge accounts hence why there are more 312

108

than one copy of some invoices.

111 Page 431 - Invoice for £1,020 from [NAME_119] - what is it for and where was the work carried out? Disputed £1,020. Email quote 22.07.16 [587 - 589]. Two camera poles, pedestrian gates park lane, bin on The Landings [map ref. 111]. 213 112 Page 433 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £902.66 - please provide the list of 29-9-16 as mentioned and also explain costs of work done on actual [NAME_23] lighting, which is owned by [NAME_48], as it states work done and clearly paid for by Leaseholders for works to; Lock Light Pontoon Gate. Marian Light. Disputed £902.66. M B Electrical are provided with a list of defective lights which are recorded by the security officers on their patrols. When there are a significant number of lights that require attention, then the electrician will attend as it is not cost effective for the them to attend to one light at a time. The light on Pontoon gate 2 has been replaced at the cost of the management company as this lighting is required for viewing the CCTV and access control equipment on this gate. As stated previously, the [COMPANY_55] pay a significant amount of money to the service charge which takes into account these additional services that they benefit from. 175 113 Page 436 - please explain the why [NAME_241] are carrying out the action of obtaining quotes for a Gazebo on the [NAME_51] - was such works ever carried out? Disputed. A quote from [NAME_119] for the painting of the gazebo on the Mooring was not carried out as it was felt that the decoration of such was at an acceptable standard. The management company are responsible for the gazebo on the [NAME_51] as this is available for any resident of [NAME_10] to use. 313 114 Page 437 - to what does this email pertain to? Disputed. The email is the quotation for the replacement of the five benches to be installed on the Landings. Five benches would be ordered at the same time so that they are all of the same type. The current style is now unavailable therefore [NAME_207] decided to purchase ones that would not need future maintenance and would replace them 214

109

on site as and when the current ones became unusable.

115 Page 446 - The Invoice from [NAME_104] for repairs to the boatyard lamps, why is this a charge for Leaseholders within the service charge? Disputed £194.04. All lampposts on site other than those within [NAME_118], [NAME_56] or Care Home are the responsibility of [NAME_207] [590]. 187 116 Page 439 -Invoice from [NAME_104] for problems with a lamp on [NAME_1], for £126.00 - [NAME_1] were still not handed over and were in control of [NAME_206]. Will not pay £126.00. We did not recharge to [NAME_192] as it was blown off in the wind so an act of the weather not a defect.

200 117 Pages 438 to 449 - is a host of invoices for repair

and lamp replacements totalling £5,076.20, but does not fully identify, which lampposts in regard to leaseholders service charge costs are true and correct, moreover it seems there is an invoice to [NAME_48] for only £142.82 and then one from [NAME_48] for £568 what is this for- lighting costs are not really fully explained and there seems to be work carried out for [NAME_48], which is not fully accounted for. Full explanation of whom owns the lighting columns, whose responsible for repairs and any contracts that affirms such, are requested. Disputed £5,076.20. See point 45.

175 118 Page 450. Invoice for £150 from [NAME_220] -please explain? Disputed £150.00. See point 47.

190 119 Page 451 and 452 - from [NAME_219] shows work being done re the Service Storm Pump, as initially instructed by [NAME_216] for [NAME_13] but the cost of £180 is See Point 46.

190

110

paid for by Leaseholders service charges - why? Disputed £180.

120 Page 453 -Invoice from [NAME_344] - for the purchase of tipper van for £6,900.00-why is the management company buying a vehicle over 10 years old, which is liable to be more expensive in running costs and maintenance? Disputed £6,900.00. The tipper van was purchased from [NAME_243] as at the time this was a cost-effective solution to providing an additional vehicle to the landscaping staff. The cost for a newer vehicle is excessive and due to the fact that there is limited use on site, it was felt by the Management company and the Directors that this provided a good value solution. 215 121 Page 457 - Invoice for £362.66 for another Hedge Trimmer - what other quotes were obtained? A similar model can be bought for £170, which would have saved £192.86.

Disputed £362.66. The hedge trimmer was purchased from [NAME_109] who provide equipment to [COMPANY_76]. The costs are felt to be acceptable to the management company, they are checked against current prices available online. However, by purchasing from a local company it insures that if there is a problem with the product that they do rectify the problem with no delay to the management company. 216 122 Page 459 - An invoice from [NAME_216] -no real explanation what the inspect and repair was for - why? Disputed £156. This was for an invoice from [NAME_164] paid for by [NAME_214] and recharged. Grounds staff accidently hit fuel cut off switch on new vehicle as they were unaware it existed. 267 123 Page 466 - An invoice from "[NAME_330]

what was £2,515.80 paid for? It seems to be for a pressure washer, the applicants nor other leaseholders have seen the use of any pressure washer anywhere on site, and if such was purchased for use on management vehicles, the cost seems disproportionate for use. Disputed £2,515.80. Proforma Invoice is an accrual. 50% posted to be invoiced by [NAME_202] when actually purchased.

217

111

124 Pages 467 to 482 - monies spent at Co- op are most expensive for petrol and grocery, the overall cost of £2,404.08 is simply

excessive.

Main supermarkets could have been used, which are less than one mile away from the Co-op, saving some 10% - why was this not monitored? Disputed £2,404.08. See point 28.

257 125 Page 483 -Commercial insurance at £8,024.39 - please provide other quotes you should have obtained at the time. Disputed £8,024.39. [NAME_142] are the insurance brokers used by [COMPANY_76]. The brokers obtained quotations from the market and advised as to the best value and best offer for [COMPANY_76]. 244 126 Page 484-485 - Invoice from [NAME_48] for portion insurance please explain what this covers and what other quotes obtained? In order to understand the portions of insurance attributable to [NAME_48] - please explain the workings in further detail and as to why the [NAME_9] simply do not seek their own cover? Disputed £365.78 Under the terms of the lease between [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_223], the Mooring Company is responsible for insuring the building and they then recharge the proportion of the security office and landscape store.

314 127 Page 486 487 - Are invoice from [NAME_246] - please provide where these plants, clearing, spraying where planted/ located in terms of the grass park Area and Gazebo area and where any of these costs attributable to [COMPANY_305] and or [COMPANY_135].? The amount of £3,921.00 seems high. Please provide other quotes obtained at the time? Disputed £3,921.00. Page 486 was the Ivy along the fence of Ellison's Quay. Page 487 was for The [NAME_51] and the areas outside the [NAME_51] car park [591] [map ref. 127].

187 128 Page 489-492 -Emails/receipts to [NAME_66] for supply of plants at £217.75 Please explain where these plants where located? Disputed £217 Planting scheme designed by horticultural apprentice and approved by [NAME_207] for Landings roundabout. Plants and materials ordered online by 187

112

75. [NAME_66] and re-imbursed [592 - 597] [map ref. 128]. 129 Page 493 - The invoice from [NAME_306] for £780.00 - please advise where this work was carried out. Disputed £780.00. [ADDRESS] inside main gate along road and behind houses along edge of towpath [597] [map ref. 129]. 315 130 Pages 496 to 500 -Please explain why £1,400 was spent on Skips and where they were used? Disputed £1,400.00 See point 55.

180 131 Pages 505 TO 769 - the applicant requires all 2016 invoices to [COMPANY_208], [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_224] as they are not fully disclosed in the documents inspected. The costs incurred are very vague and not area specific, nor are time spent carrying out such works fully invoiced, the applicant requires more descriptive work and other costs, including fuel, wear and tear, chemicals, paints, equipment used, which are not shown on the few invoices the applicant has seen They were disclosed in the files seen by [NAME_58] along with the worksheets for invoices to [NAME_202], [COMPANY_71] and [NAME_248] are all attached to the invoices. The invoices to [NAME_215] are attached to [NAME_202] invoices but again are in the file if needed.

316 - proof of payment is required of all, as none are marked as paid: the invoices seen are for various works carried out, in relation to invoices for landscaping and cleaning toilets are, of serious concern in that the following areas seem to exist; of poor accounting, manifestly undercharging and lack of correct hours spent. Theses invoices are proof of payment as they are not entered into the service charge until the monies are received.

316

a. The labour rate charged for [NAME_48], [NAME_89] and [NAME_13] is £9.32 plus 0.85p per hour ''Employment costs" the costs do not include materials used, petrol for the lawnmowers, weed killer, wear and tear or any other cost. The charge per Refer to point 56.

316

113

hour is £10.17.

b. Reviewing the invoices to [NAME_225] in the 2017 accounts, they paid for the same services provided to the companies above but at a rate of £26.25 per hour; a 158.11% difference. Refer to point 56.

316 c. The national employed contract rate in 2016 as per the Association of National Landscapers contractors rate was £15.50 per hour. This excludes use

of

any equipment/petrol, pesticides or any other materials used in the course of the work, like gloves, bags. Refer to point 56.

316 d. A normal contractors rate including use of equipment and charging for materials is £35/40 per hour. Refer to point 56.

316 e. [NAME_9] has been manifestly undercharging

[COMPANY_305] and [COMPANY_135] to benefit those directors and their respective companies, - if they had been charged even at the rate charged to Arbour Living -the income received should have been substantially more. Refer to point 56.

316 f. [NAME_89] has also been manifestly undercharged. Refer to point 56.

316

g. Notwithstanding the above, it is clear and evident that the rates charged to [COMPANY_71]/[NAME_48] and [NAME_89], do not cover the costs of materials, in essence the costs charge, will not cover overall staff costs per hour, and service charges funds are being used, Refer to point 56.

316

114

to support the financial benefit of these companies.

h. There is no charges for wear and tear of equipment or any material used; such as petrol, and other garden equipment and ancillary items. Refer to point 56.

316 i. The [NAME_226] acting for the respondents has affirmed there are no contracts that exist in his letter of 10-9-18, for the provision of the landscaping services by [NAME_9], which demonstrate very poor management and commercial awareness, by the Respondents.

Refer to point 56.

316

j. There are no charges for work done by security or provision of CCTV services for these companies.

Refer to point 56.

316 k. It is clearly evident that leaseholders are paying through the service charge to subsidise works done for the respondents at a considerable cost and detriment. Other parties also benefit from the poor management, which will always exist due to the conflicts of interest that will arise through the directors of the management company and their third- party companies acting for the self- interest and financial benefit. The court should carefully scrutinise what is happening in the management of the Management company and its actions. Refer to point 56.

316

115

I. Disputed. It is suggested based on 2017 -that until all invoices are received it is estimated in excess of some £14,000 has been lost through undercharging and such should be credited to the service charge funds for this period.

Refer to point 56.

316 132 Page 813/814 - £930.93 paid to [NAME_144] - for dealing with an issue re [NAME_96] - what was the issue about, what other quotes were obtained for such work and why were [NAME_216] incapable of resolving? Normally fees for professional consultancy work include travel - why was such paid extra in this case? What other quotes were obtained, was there a conflict of interest with [NAME_178] being the wife/relative of the director [NAME_198]? Disputed £930.93. [COMPANY_249] have been used by [COMPANY_223] as they are considerably cheaper than [COMPANY_20]. [NAME_216] are a firm of surveyors, we do not specialise in property or employment law. If there is a dispute under the terms of the lease or an employment issue, then a specialist a consultant is required to advise accordingly. There is no conflict of interest with [NAME_79]. Fees for employment law advice in regard to security officers, holding meetings with said officers and producing agreements for [NAME_207] as per page 814. See point 86. 292 133 Page 815 - £500 paid to [NAME_144] - for dealing with an issue re [NAME_96] - what was the issue about, what other quotes were obtained for such work and why were [NAME_216] incapable of resolving? Normally fees for professional consultancy work include travel - why was such paid extra in this case? What other quotes were obtained, was there a conflict of interest with [NAME_178] being the wife/relative of the director [NAME_198]? Disputed £500 This invoice was nothing to do with employment law. It is to do with the items stated on the invoice in regard to the leaseholders’ handbook. + see point 132.

292 134 Page 816 - Please explain why The Management company is paying [NAME_216] £600 as instructed by [NAME_77] to do recommended service charge issues, site inspection - more detail is See point 59.

281

116

required? Disputed £600.

135 Page 817 //818 - £930.93 paid to [NAME_144] - for dealing with an issue re [NAME_96] - what was the issue about, what other quotes were obtained for such work and why were [NAME_216] incapable of resolving? Normally fees for professional consultancy work include travel - why was such paid extra in this case? Moreover, all the issues seemed to fall within the defined area of estate management, which should be covered by [NAME_216]? Was there a conflict of interest with [NAME_178] being the wife/relative of the director [NAME_198]? Disputed £939.20. Page 818 shows a breakdown of the charges on invoice 817. As previous, said [NAME_214] are not solicitors and various items need be queried as to the likelihood of a court finding in our favour or a legal opinion in regard to a lease breach etc. + refer to point 132.

317 136 Page 819 -why is [COMPANY_223] paying for work done by [NAME_216] for [NAME_48] issuing 413 letters re [NAME_48] and the postage of such? Disputed £123.66.

This was the costs of issuing the revised handbook and regulations to all leaseholders.

283 137 Page 820- Invoice fees for Debt Chasing Letters by [NAME_216], which should be within the Management fee of [NAME_216]? Disputed £2,196.00.

See point 62.

278 138 Page 821 -824 - Re court/debts fee charged by [NAME_216] to the management company - was these recovered? Disputed. See point 62. This money is added to the leaseholders’ debt and recovered from them therefore no overall charge to [NAME_207]. 284

117

139 Page 822 - £874.2 paid to [NAME_144] - for dealing with an issue re [NAME_96] - what was the issue about, what other quotes were obtained for such work and why were [NAME_216] incapable of resolving? Normally fees for professional consultancy work include travel - why was such paid extra in this case? What other quotes were obtained, was there a conflict of interest with [NAME_178] being the wife/relative of the director [NAME_198]? What does the payment to DVLA cover? What qualifications did [NAME_178] have, which made her suitable to advise on this issue? Disputed £874.20.

Breakdown of legal advice as per page 823. Same answer as all others in regard to this supplier. Refer to point 132.

292 140 Page 826 -827 - please explain the invoice of £120 from [NAME_132]? Disputed. A vehicle had been abandoned in the Landings car park. To enable removal, an application to the DVLA had to be made. Once it was established that the abandoned vehicle could be removed. The locks were changed so to remove the vehicle. 218 141 Page 822 - £7 45.25 paid to [NAME_144] - for dealing with an issue re [NAME_96] - and applicant, what other quotes were obtained for such work and why were [NAME_216] incapable of resolving? Normally fees for professional consultancy work include travel -why was such paid extra in this case? What other quotes obtained, was there a conflict of interest with [NAME_178] being the wife/relative of the director [NAME_198]? What qualifications did [NAME_178] have, which made her suitable to advise on this issue? Disputed £745.25. See point 139. Breakdown is at page 829.

292

118

142 Page 830 - The fee for Data Protection is noted at £35 - The Management company agent [NAME_216] has now admitted in communications dated 7-8-18, that it had no written privacy statement until June 2018, showing woefully inadequate management and protection of service charge holders data and personal details for many years, despite service charge holders being charged the sum for a data protection fee. Disputed £35.00 See point 67.

219 143 Pages 835 to 838 Invoices from [NAME_216] for 2016 period management fees. When were these fully reviewed? Disputed £32,400.00 See point 69.

278

2017

144 Page 14-lnvoice from [NAME_92] for £515.68 - why is the sum of £51 5.68 - being paid by the Management company for a [NAME_23] issue? Will not pay £515.68. Recharged to [NAME_202] on invoice 2138. Paid See point 154 [836].

145 145 Page 15 - Invoice from [NAME_92] - why is the sum of £1,19.88 - being paid by the Management company for a Quays Gate issue when the site was still owned by [COMPANY_71] and not then handed over? Will not pay £1,19.88. All occupiers of [NAME_1] are benefitting from the security provided by the gate, therefore the management company are responsible for the cost of any repairs. Since the [NAME_10] development was first developed, the costs for the maintenance of the access control and security systems benefitting the occupiers on site are paid and charged to the leaseholders through the Management Company. 200 146 Page 23 - Invoice 143209 by [NAME_92] - was the damage to the Barrier caused by someone driving into such, recovered, as the management company do have 24Hr CCTV? Will not pay £318.48.

Were unable to recover as could not read all of number plate of vehicle visiting site. Less than insurance excess.

220

119

147 Page 24 - Invoice 143209 by [NAME_92] for £1,440 maintenance inspection were other quotes obtained and does it include any work done on [NAME_1], or the then new development [ADDRESS], within the new development by [COMPANY_208]? Disputed £1,440.00. See point 75.

155 148 Page 26 -[NAME_92] - why is the sum of £924.19 - being paid by the Management company for a Quays Gate issue when the site was still owned by [COMPANY_71] and not handed over? Will not pay £924.19. See point 145.

200 149 Page 27 - Invoice for £199.56 - for issues with gates at the Lodges - what Lodges? No invoices for such works to the Lodges of any description or in any capacity been provided in 2017 accounts for such work to whichever party is liable? Will not pay £199.56. The Lodges pay an enhanced percentage to take into account the monitoring of the CCTV system that monitors the gate. The security staff spotted thee gates were broken and asked [NAME_92] to fix. This is an error on the part of the security staff. 318 150 Page 28 - Invoice 145300 - is for further work on the Ellison's Quay Gate at a cost of £ 646.92 - £162.58 had already been spent on such 5 months earlier-why is there no monitoring of work done and querying of such previous repair work? Disputed £646.92. Repairs and maintenance are an ongoing issue that cannot be left unrepaired because it was not budgeted. 159

151 Page 33 - Invoice 146462 from [NAME_92] for £83 -work done on Pontoon Pedestrian gate re [NAME_23] gate - have these been recharged

to [NAME_13] and [NAME_48]? Will not pay £83.

This invoice is for minor adjustments to 3 separate gates all of which are maintained by [NAME_207] [map ref. 151].

187

120

152 Page 34 - Invoice 147068 for £8,607.43 is work under taken by [NAME_92] - please provide alternative quotes obtained at the time? Disputed £8,607.43. As we have constantly said, we use one company so that we get a site wide continuity. If they are supplied by another supplier they may not work with our other systems and then we would need to work with several different companies if a fault cannot be traced. The applicant misses the point about how best value works. It does not mean 'cheapest'. [NAME_92] are a regular contractor. They know the site well. [NAME_211] is satisfied with their work and service. They know [NAME_211]'s systems, having installed most of them. There is no evidence that the work could have been carried out cheaper, but if it could have, that ignores the risks associated with a new contractor for leaseholders. 160 153 Page 36 -41 Invoices 14 7498 and 149344 from [NAME_92] totalling £288.00 - work done on Quays Pedestrian gate and [NAME_23] vehicle gate - have these been recharged to [NAME_13] and [NAME_48]? Will not pay £288.00. None of this invoice would be recharged to anyone else. Since the [NAME_10] development was first developed, the costs for the maintenance of the access control and security systems benefitting the occupiers on site are paid and charged to the leaseholders through the Management Company, no matter what part of site you live on or whether you are residential or commercial.

161 154 Please confirm this invoice was paid by [NAME_48] and provide proof of the payment of £515.687 Disputed £515.68. See point 144. 319 155 Page 44 -what does the amount of £2,010.46 refer to? Disputed £2,010.46. As you saw in the file this is an accrual for [NAME_52] Control system to be renewed. 170 156 Page 46 - Invoice from [NAME_92] for Annual Maintenance of CCIV system at £996.00 -what other quotes provided at the time? Disputed The Management Company are happy with the service that is provided by [NAME_92]. The costs are comparative to alternative companies. 155

121

£996.00. They know how the system is set up and have a good response time to call outs. In the past the Management Company did use a cheaper company, however, response times were poor, and the works undertaken were not acceptable. 157 Pages 49 -Invoice from [NAME_100] for £5,340 - what was this for, please provide other quotes obtained at the time? Disputed £5,340.00. [840] Ducting and Groundworks for Point 158. Most of this was accrued in 2016 [map ref. 158].

162 158 Page 51-52 - Invoice for £7,560.00 by [NAME_92] - what chalk path was the camera relocated upon, and please provide other quotes obtained at the time? Disputed £7,560.00. As invoice states to relocate camera 7 due to trees now obscuring the view from this camera and bring it forward to view the junction of [ADDRESS] & [ADDRESS]. To supply and install new camera on to the Chalk Path with appropriate fibre optics £4500 was accrued for this in 2016 162 159 Page 53/5455/56 - is work under taken by [NAME_92] to the value of £4,410, with work done on [NAME_52], please provide alternative quotes obtained at the time and whether [NAME_48] or [NAME_89] were charged for such works carried out? Disputed £4,410.00. These were routine replacement of cameras as they reach the end of their life and/or the picture quality deteriorates and technology improves. £1240 was accrued in 2016 towards this. 163 160 Page 57 - Invoice by [NAME_216] for £722.34 two Panasonic Tvs, where is the original supplier invoice and where are the Tvs? Disputed £722.34. The TV's are in fact the monitors that security view the CCTV images on. [NAME_216] purchased these on their credit card, so to save monies as they were cheaper than from [NAME_92]. 265 161 Page 83 and various -re invoices for [NAME_251] car, invoices for a contract hire car for security to use. The applicant asked for the quote sought at the time, as the cost was high in comparison to other identical vehicles by £132 per month - no explanation provided. Costs disputed See point 20.

237

122

for period.

162 Page 96 - It is noted that the security vehicle was replaced in September 2017 - it was replaced with a larger vehicle - further why was £485.18 paid for damages to the previous VW Polo? Disputed £485.38 However, why was a 5-door vehicle purchased and not a much cheaper one as the vehicle is only minimally used by one person at any one time. There was plenty of more suitable models for less than £150? Costs of hire car disputed. [NAME_207] directors wanted to be greener therefore quotes for Hyundai and Toyota were acquired. We did test drive an electric car, but it would not have been possible to charge the vehicle. The hybrid car is saving money as the fuel usage is considerably down. Hyundai was more cost effective and even though it is a bigger car it is cheaper to run. The new car costs £0.70 per month more than the old one. 238 163 Page 100 - Commercial Motor vehicle insurance for £3,034 - seems very excessive, please provide other quotes obtained at the time? Disputed £3,034. [NAME_142] are the insurance brokers used by [COMPANY_76]. The brokers obtained quotations from the market and advised as to the best value and best offer for [COMPANY_76]. 244 164 Page 102- Please explain why £250 was paid re AW Accident repair? Disputed £250. Security Officer reversed into a post and damaged the car; this is the insurance excess to repair. Due to contract hire agreement has to be repaired at authorised repair centre. 321 165 Pages 261-262-265-274-279-283-287- 294-295-302- re [NAME_97], which was paid £3,469.40 -why? Disputed £3,469.40. See point 24.

153 166 Page 303 - [NAME_241] for Sharp Microwave - what is it for? Disputed £50.40. Replacement microwave for the security staff to heat their food. The staff work a 12 hour shift with limited options on site for meals. 266 167 Page 304 - [NAME_241] for Hoover - what is it for? Disputed £52.79. Replacement hoover for the security office as security staff clean the office on a rota basis during night shifts. 266 168 Page 354 - [NAME_241] for £59.92 what is the kettle Replacement kettle for the security 266

123

for? Disputed £18.53

office.

169 Page 305 - [NAME_241] invoice for Estate Manager - see earlier comments - fees are not reviewed. Disputed. See point 35. These fees were reviewed at the end of 2017; [NAME_214] did not propose a fee increase on this.

278 170 Page 306/307 - West Lindsey Council Rates Bill for £2,904 -see earlier comments re previous rates bills. Disputed. The rates bill is for the grounds store, as detailed on the bill. This is for the store used by the ground staff to store all equipment used by them. 253 171 Pages 355 - Invoice for security car - see earlier comments re this car in 2016 file. Disputed. Page 355 is for replacement first aid box items totalling £9.83 and is nothing to do with the security car. 249 172 Page 356 - [NAME_241] for Hoover what are service charge costs paying for another Hoover? Will not pay £76.73. The first hoover was dropped when hoovering the security office stairs and broke. Therefore, this is the cost of replacing the hoover.

266 173 Pages 358-363 -Why are service costs paying for £294 for a fire extinguisher in [NAME_52] and room and what is the other Boiler Room? Should these fees not be paid by [NAME_48] or [NAME_89]? Disputed £196. Pages 358 & 359 were for the servicing of fire extinguishers on site. Page 360 is an accrual for replacing all fire extinguishers with new 10 year models. Better prices for ordering in bulk therefore will recharge once on site.

249 174 Pages 364 - 374 - Fee of £2,640 - paid to [NAME_150] for Health and Safety Management Services why are leaseholders service charge funds, paying extra fees for a service, which seems to provide little value for monies

and then leaseholders additionally pay [NAME_144] to advise and prepare bespoke policies on the same matter? This is an excessive and unnecessary costs, better management of such could be achieved. Disputed £2,640. [NAME_252] were employed by the Management Company to provide [NAME_212] advice to the Company. They replaced [COMPANY_253]. They were paid a retainer to provide advice, produce audits and policies, and to carry out regular visits to the site. [NAME_174] reviewed the policy documents on behalf of [NAME_207].

322

124

175 Page 376 - Invoice from [NAME_119] for £2,706 - this is extremely expensive - and has it seems been done before by [NAME_168] -why done again in such a short space of time? Disputed £2,706. This invoice is for repainting of the security office interior and the railings on the balcony and does not pertain to point 41.

221 176 Pages 382-386 -Invoices from [NAME_48] -please see earlier comments, it is noted the rent has gone up, how was such reviewed? Disputed£ £17,629.10. Invoice 383 is for back rent due to the increase in rent. The rent was reviewed in accordance with the lease. Page 382, 384, 385 & 386 are quarterly rent invoices. 323 177 Pages 387 - 397- [NAME_216] Estate Manager and Management Fees are too expensive at £35,800 -see earlier comments in 2015-2016. Disputed £35,800.

See point 35.

278 178 Page 398 - Costs of £81.34 by [NAME_216] -where is the actual supplier cost? Disputed £81.34. Supply of stationery to [NAME_207] from [NAME_214].

266 179 Page 399-401 - Costs of £225.16 by [NAME_216] for Tea Bags and Coffee? Disputed 225.16. Page 399 is a [NAME_214] invoice for Black Markers at £10.78. Page 400 is a Micro Computers invoice for Ink Toner Cartridges for the security office printer. Page 401 is a [NAME_214] invoice for 5 reams of paper (a box). 266 180 Pages 405-408 -Invoices to [COMPANY_314] demonstrates costs are not monitored, as £13.55 paid for Basildon Bond Envelopes DL Pack of 100 - same can be bought for £6.02. A total of £85.24 paid- overpriced by some 50%. £42.62 could have been saved -poor management and unnecessary costs incurred. [NAME_214] withdrew their credit facility for purchasing items and recharging. Therefore, companies have been sought that will offer credit terms to [NAME_207]. [NAME_207] do not use great amounts of stationery items so buying in bulk is a false economy as large amounts are wasted due to glue no longer sticking etc. To this end, smaller amounts may cost equal to larger. Some items are cheaper than others - so the cost often evens itself out over items. 257 181 Page 503 - This is an invoice from Lincolnshire County Council to [NAME_216] for £360 - it is not to [COMPANY_8] and is therefore not an allowable cost. [843] [map ref. 181] A road safety audit was carried out as the cost of the works to bring the pedestrian crossing into an acceptable standard were excessive. [NAME_254] 324

125

Moreover, why was such road safety audit instructed. [NAME_9] had affirmed they had instructed a report before 2016 and such report affirmed the Zebra Crossings were fine. It is also noted [NAME_203] in correspondence on 28-6-18 affirmed the costs of repair of the zebra crossings of £900 was disproportionate. [NAME_256], respondents solicitor affirmed, in a letter dated 20-10-2016; "That both Zebra Crossings are considered to be in good order. The Management company has consulted a qualified Highway

and

Transportation Engineer. No concerns have been drawn to the attention of the Management Company". The applicant asked in response to this letter; sight of the advice of the Highway Engineer from [NAME_227], no reply or report upon such request was forthcoming. The Safety Audit report provided by the respondents solicitor, which took place in May 2017 -advises the developer states the beacons on the [NAME_70] have not been working for a few years. It seems there is confusion as one minute they are in good order, the next they are as affirmed as not working. The management company and its directors and solicitors, all seem to have differing views. However, in any event, the management company wilfully neglected important health and safety issues affecting leaseholders and residents, exposing the leaseholders and the management company to gross unnecessary risk -why? Will not pay £360. produced a report which confirmed that the crossing could be removed. This was done.

182 Page 505 - Invoice from [COMPANY_71] for £113.83 - what is this for and why is this a leaseholders service charge cost? Disputed £113.83. Pages 505 - 508 as page 505 shows this is recharge from [COMPANY_71] to [NAME_207] for the annual Agricultural Drainage Rates for the site. Pages 506-508 are the backing documentation 222

126

183 Page 509 - Invoice from [NAME_304] for £1,529.10 - to [NAME_216] and not [COMPANY_8] and is therefore not an allowable cost. Moreover, more detail of the work is required. It is noted that the charge for labourers is £43, which is a very different figure than that, which is charged

by

[NAME_9] to [NAME_13], [NAME_48] and [NAME_89] for labour supplied. Disputed £1,529.10.

This invoice was part charge to [NAME_207] and part charged to [NAME_257] and paid from the requisite bank accounts. Invoice states what work was completed and where. 271 184 Page 510 - There is an email from [NAME_29], which states a £300 charitable donation is being made. It is not a decision that should be made by the leaseholders company to make charitable donations without full consent of leaseholders, as it is not a reasonable cost. Will not pay £300. This is for replacing the ropes and all the flags on the flagpoles at the end of [ADDRESS] at a cost of £236.43, see point 185. We then donated £63.57 to [NAME_133] for their time to do the actual work on re-roping etc. Therefore £300 cannot be in dispute. Historically this work had been completed by an outside contractor and cost almost £600 therefore a cost saving of 50%. 223 185 Page 512 to 516 - Invoice from [NAME_258] for £275.84- where is the flagpole? Disputed £275.84. See point 185. Boat club did the work, we paid them and gave them a small donation [846] as they are a charity [map ref. 185]. 223 186 Page 517 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £917.60 for electrical work in regard to removing Zebra crossings - this cost is more than the cost of repairing, as [NAME_203] stated in his letter of 28-6-16. Will not pay £917.60.

The cables to pelican crossings were connected to other lighting therefore the power supplies needed to be separated and made safe before disconnection.

271 187 Page 518- Invoice from [NAME_168] for £1,911.30 for removal of Zebra Crossings - this cost more than repairing the [NAME_70] as [NAME_203] stated in his letter of 28- Following a report from [NAME_255], it was decided that the crossings would be removed rather than relocated to save money for leaseholders in the long term. This is 271

127

6-16 of £900; Total cost of removal of [NAME_70] is £2,828.90; this is manifestly excessive, when if repaired in 2016, the cost would have been £900. Will not pay £1,911.30 the cost of undertaking that work. 188 Page 519 - Invoice from [NAME_168] for £1,247.50 - please provide alterative quotes obtained. Disputed £1,247.50 Invoice is for 2 separate items and not felt alternative quotes needed [851].

271 189 Page 520 - Invoice from [NAME_129] for £2,095.20 - what is this for- it seems to be steel benches -where are these located - please provide alterative quotes? Disputed £2,095.20.

This is for the supply of benches at point 114. Accrued in 2016 therefore no actual cost in 2017.

191 190 Page 522 - Invoice from [NAME_168] for £612.90 - please provide alterative quotes obtained. Disputed £612.90. No alternative quote sought due to quickness of repair required due to trip hazard.

271 191 Page 523/524/525 - There is only one quote per job -why no other quotes obtained? Disputed.

Accruals.

224, 271 Duplicated 192 Page 526 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £949.32 - why are we paying for work done on [NAME_23] near the fuelling station? Disputed £949.32. The invoice says the lock gate light was not working because the electric supply had been disconnect due to a fire at the fuelling station [852] [map ref 192]. If the lock gate light is not working, then the cctv cannot be viewed and therefore [NAME_52] area including residential areas is unsecure. They pay towards security as part of the service charge the same as everyone else.

164 193 Page 527 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £1,746.68 - please provide details of work done and other suitable quotes obtained at the time.. It is interesting to note [NAME_1] lights are covered under warranty in 2017 -yet in 2015- 2016 -[NAME_1] lights repairs were paid for by service charge funds. The invoice shows which street light bulbs were replaced. [NAME_1] lights that had faults and had never worked were repaired by the developers’ contractors, not [NAME_207].

164

128

Disputed £1,746.68.

194 Page 528 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £1,496.40 - who are [NAME_259] and where are they located, do they pay a service charge, please provide details of work done and other suitable quotes obtained at the time. Disputed £1,496.40.

[NAME_259] are leaseholders on site, who all contribute to the service charge. Their work was not completed due to access issues as per invoice [853] [map ref. 193].

164 195 Page 529 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £763.48, please provide details of work done and other suitable quotes obtained at the time. It is also noted works done on pontoons in [NAME_23], why are leaseholders costs being used to pay for such works? Disputed £763.48. As previously stated, if we do not replace the bulbs above the pontoon gates we cannot see with the CCTV so we replace these bulbs. The ones on the actual pontoons are reported to [NAME_215] and they arrange repairs separately.

164 196 Page 536 -Invoice from [NAME_48] for £568.73 for Lighting Colum charges - what is this and why is such being paid? Where is the agreement to pay such? Disputed £568.73. This is for 18 lights that are billed to [NAME_202] and they recharge to [NAME_207] [854].

225 197 Page 537 -Invoice from [NAME_48] for £1,398.90 for 50% Contribution for [NAME_123] - what is this and why is such being paid - where is the agreement to pay such? On point 123; £2,515.80 was paid for a pressure washer? Why is the service charge paying for a pressure washer and a [NAME_123] wash? Disputed £1,398.90. The pressure washer is used for cleaning grounds equipment. It is also used around site for cleaning footpaths etc. 50% of the cost was recharged by [NAME_202] as they bought it.

226 198 Page 538 - Duplicate Cash Sales Invoice from [NAME_244] - please affirm was only paid once? Disputed £2,515.80. See point 197 and 123. Backing paperwork to 197. 226 199 Page 539 -This is an invoice to [NAME_308] - what is this for? Disputed £282. See point 197 and 123. Backing paperwork to 197. 226

129

200 Page 540 - Invoice from [NAME_220] for Parkers Drain -what is it for? Disputed £163.50. See point 47.

190 201 547/551 - Invoice from [NAME_142] for Van Insurance - please explain what van -and what other quotes obtained? Disputed £704.85. Additional Grounds Maintenance Vehicle adding to fleet policy.

244 202 Page 552 - An invoice from [NAME_115] - what was the basis of this purchase? As a van had already been purchased Disputed £7,200. This is an additional Ground Maintenance vehicle; so they have two now. This means they can take their tools and work in two separate areas of site as two teams. The vehicle must be large enough to carry mowers. 181 203 Page 559 - Invoice from [NAME_219] for £180 - what is this for? Disputed £180. See point 46.

190 204 Page 563 - Invoice from [NAME_142] for Fleet Commercial -what is this for and please provide policy and other quotes obtained? Disputed £3,034.94. [NAME_142] are the insurance brokers used by [COMPANY_76]. The brokers obtained quotations from the market and advised as to the best value and best offer for [COMPANY_76]. The insurance is for the equipment owned by the Management Company including the CCTV/Access Control equipment and PL insurance for the common parts of the site. 244 205 Page 568 - Invoice from [NAME_220] for hire of plant and Labour-what is it for? Disputed £120.

See point 47.

190 206 Page 587 - Invoice from [NAME_142] for £8,335.38 - please detail what the cover is for, and which areas with in the development, and what other quotes have been obtained and why no other brokers are used? Disputed £8,335.38. See point 52.

244 207 Page 588 - Invoice from [NAME_48] for £36 7.75 - for insurance of [NAME_23] and Management Building - please qualify what area this covers; what agreement exists to pay and please send a copy? Disputed £376.75. Under the terms of the lease between [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_223], the Mooring Company are responsible for insuring the building and they then recharge the proportion of the security office and landscape store. 255

130

208 Page 590/592/593 - Invoices from [NAME_116] to [NAME_46] - it is not to [COMPANY_8] and is therefore not an allowable cost. Work seems to be have done re a boat? The applicant has checked with HMRC and they have affirmed any invoices not in [COMPANY_309], would not be allowed as Taxable expenses, thus £1,920 is not a recoverable expense by [NAME_339] any. Will not pay £1,920.00. Invoice says tree work carried out at [NAME_10] and the invoices lists the work done. Invoice simply names the wrong entity.

182 209 Page 595-599-600-601-602-603-604- 605-606-607- -Invoices from [NAME_316] - what are these for, what other quotes obtained? Disputed £2,140. See point 55.

227 210 Pages 610 to 935 - in relation to invoices for landscaping and cleaning toilets, invoiced to [COMPANY_208], [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_224] are of serious concern, in that the following areas of poor accounting exist, undercharging and lack of correct hours spent or accurate recording of such is woeful management practice and monitoring; to the clear detriment of service charge funds and have not been reasonably charged. Refer to point 56.

146 a. [COMPANY_208] - [NAME_192] only paid £1,800.25 for 147.Shrs from November 16 through to October 17 for Landscaping, weeding's, fixing and cleaning a water filtration system within [NAME_1]. Refer to point 56.

146

b. [NAME_48] only paid £6 ,989.07 for 553hrs cleaning toilets and landscaping work, painting and Refer to point 56.

146

131

cleaning and power washing jetty. c. [COMPANY_224] paid £915.36 for 75hrs. Refer to point 56. 146 d. [NAME_225] paid £3,360 for Landscaping. Refer to point 56. 146 e. The labour rate charged for [COMPANY_208]. [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_224] is £9.32 plus 0.85p per hour ''Employment costs" the costs do not include materials used, petrol for the lawnmowers, weed killer, wear and tear or any other cost. The charge per hour is £10.17. Refer to point 56.

146 f. Reviewing the invoices for [NAME_225], it paid for the exact same services as provided to the companies, which are owned by, or directors of [NAME_203] and [NAME_197], , However the difference in fee charge between, [NAME_225] and [NAME_262] and [NAME_79]'s companies show; a 158.11o/o difference in undercharging, which is clearly to the benefit of [NAME_13],

[COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_135], which financially benefits the respective directors and such undercharging, whilst not equal to all, is at clear detriment to service charge holders income. Refer to point 56.

146 g. The national employed contractors rate, as per the Association of National Landscapers contractors rate was £17.50 per hour. This excludes use of any equipment/petrol, pesticides or any other materials used in the course of the work, like gloves, bags. Refer to point 56.

146

132

h. A normal contractors rate including use of equipment and charging for materials is £35/40 per hour. Refer to point 56.

146 i. [NAME_9] has been manifestly undercharging

[COMPANY_305] and [COMPANY_135] to benefit those directors and their respective companies - if they had been charged even at the rate charged to Arbour Living -the income received from [COMPANY_71] would have been for 147.5 hrs at £26.25 would have generated £3,871.87; taking away the sum already received of £1,800.25

- this would have generated extra inco me for the [COMPANY_8] of £2.701.62 an d lessened service d1arge costs. Refer to point 56.

146 j. [COMPANY_135]; if charged at Arbour Living rate of £26.25 for 553 hours would have generated £13,991.25 and taking away the sum already received of £6,989.07 - this would have generated extra income for the [COMPANY_8] of £7,002.18 and lessened service charge costs. Refer to point 56.

146 k. [COMPANY_224]; if charged at Arbour Living rate of £26.25 for 75 hours would have generated £1,968.75; taking away the sum already received of £915.36 - this would have generated extra income for the [COMPANY_8] of £1,053.39 and lessened service charge costs. Refer to point 56.

146

133

i. There has been a loss of income of some £10 . 757.19 to service charge costs due to charging directors companies substa ntially much lesser rates. Refer to point 56.

146 m. The applicant based upon evidence of time spent, is not convinced that all the hours have been charged correctly as time sheets are not fully recorded. Refer to point 56.

146 n. Notwithstanding the above, it is clear and evident that the rates charged to [NAME_13] /[NAME_48] and [NAME_89], do not cover the costs of materials, in essence such low rate, will not cover overall staff costs per hour and are operating at a loss to service charge costs, which will benefit those companies of [NAME_79] and [NAME_203], the applicant alleges that such conduct is deliberately undertaken to undercharge services provided to them through [COMPANY_309] to benefit their own respective companies and use service charge funds to subsidise their respective companies. The directors of [COMPANY_309] have it is alleged by the applicant; acted against the best interests of the company and not acted in good faith by allowing such undercharging to their own other companies at the detriment of leaseholders service charge funds. Refer to point 56.

146

o. There is also a concern that through bad management; 775.5 hrs are spent supplying other services to directors companies; at a substantial loss, which is some 21 weeks of Landscapers full time work at 40hrs per week time, this is extremely poor Refer to point 56.

146

134

management and is only done to benefit [NAME_262] and [NAME_79]'s respective own companies, this is not reasonable management or conduct, as valuable employee hours, paid for by service charge funds are financially assisting these companies, with no advantage to Leaseholders, and other areas of works are being neglected or delayed to facilitate work for these companies. This is not reasonable. Undercharging disputed.

p. It is noted no charge in this year's account to any third-party company for security costs.

Refer to -point 56. 146 211 Page 936 -Please provide details of what specifically this quote of £1,010 plus vat was for and was such work carried out? Disputed. This is an accrual for additional signage and would have been deducted against the 2018 accounts. 192 212 Page 951 - Please explain why service charge monies were spent on driving lessons and theory test at a cost of £258 for [NAME_263] - who is he? If he was employed how long was he employed for -why is it a reasonable cost to employ someone whom has no driving licence, if it is a requisite for the position? Will not pay £258. [NAME_264] has been employed as an Apprentice Gardener.

Once his apprentice was completed, he was offered a full contract. Rather than a bonus for successfully completing his apprenticeship, the Management Company offered to pay for a number of driving lessons. There is no requirement for him to hold a driving licence to undertake his job role. 183

135

213 Page 981 -The cost of gritting for 3 days as stated on the invoice from [NAME_266] is simply not cost effective and manifestly excessive - nor did the applicant or other leaseholders see any gritting in the extreme bad weather at all this year, there was no gritting on [NAME_1]. Landscape staff used to do gritting, but it was advised in a [COMPANY_8] newsletter that asking staff to turn up for work early and paying extra hours was unreasonable and not cost effective. The applicant refers to the points made in point 210 above. Further having been provided with the contract by the respondents solicitor on 10-9-18- questions are raised about the contract - the agreement is between [NAME_216] and [NAME_266] not [COMPANY_309], various parts are blanked out, [NAME_47] signs on behalf of a blanked out person/company, the contract is to provide services to other sites but are blanked out and is only for the period 1-11-17 to 31-3-18; 4 months. Will not pay £5,086.24.

Historically, the landscaping staff did grit the site, however, after taking advice from the [NAME_212] advisors, it was felt that asking staff to drive themselves on untreated roads, so to spread grit at [NAME_10], was not acceptable. Three gritting companies were asked to quote to spread grit on the main roadways and car parks of [NAME_10], this was felt to be a reasonable request, considering that Local Authorities and Highways only grit main roads [855]. Every time [NAME_310] attended a report was generated. There was one instance when they were unable to attend; this was when the main roads into Lincoln were closed due to heavy snow fall. The advice from the authorities was not to travel. [NAME_267] provided a discount as they did grit other sites managed by [NAME_216]. 251 214 Page 982 - Invoice from [NAME_317] - what is this for? Disputed £113.76. Replacement of defib pads, following the use of such equipment. Unfortunately, the individual who the defib was used on did not survive, despite the use of the defib. 249 215 Page 984 - Invoice from [NAME_216] -why are we paying for Service Apportionment Opinion for 2017, which should be included within the management fees as charged by [NAME_216].. Disputed £240. See point 59.

281

136

216 Page 985 - Invoice for £1,750 from [NAME_144] - what other quotes were obtained? There is a clear conflict of interest employing an immediate relative of [NAME_79] - why do service charge costs need four classes of ''bespoke employment contracts" - where is the ''bespoke company handbook" and why is one needed? Please send copies of such. In fact, much of the work seems to be outsourced to [NAME_144] at unnecessary expense -why? What qualifications does this person have? Will not pay £1,750. New employment contracts for all staff along with new staff handbooks to cover changes in employment law.

292 217 Page 987 - Can the applicant enquire that the Sage Pension Module in the Invoice from [NAME_216] is an annual fee? Disputed £144. It is an annual fee.

285 218 Page 989/992 - Invoices for £750 from [NAME_268] in relation to Workplace Pensions - what other quotes were obtained. Disputed £1,500. Additional quote was obtained and this was the best value for work to be done [857].

325 219 Page 996 - Invoice for £2,463 from [NAME_144] - what other quotes were obtained? There is a clear conflict of interest employing an immediate relative of [NAME_79] - there is no attached schedule. Please affirm her qualifications and why she was chosen to give advice and what is it exactly for and why is it paid to the wife/relative of the Director [NAME_175]? What other quotes were obtained for the work? Will not pay £2,463. [COMPANY_249] have been used by [COMPANY_223] as they are considerably cheaper than [COMPANY_20]. [NAME_216] are a firm of surveyors, we do not specialise in property or employment law. If there is a dispute under the terms of the lease or an employment issue, then a specialist a consultant is required to advise accordingly. There is no conflict of interest with [NAME_79]. 326 220 Page 994 - Invoice from [NAME_216] for £1,782 for debt chasing letters -

this cost should be within Management fees. Will not pay £1,782.00. See point 62.

327

137

221 Page 995 - Invoice from [NAME_269] for £88 for Restaurant Lunch and room hire - why are leaseholders service charge costs paying lunch and why hire a room when [NAME_9] has its own offices and whom attended the meeting and what was it about? Will not pay £88.

This invoice was for room hire and coffees for [NAME_207], [NAME_214] and BW Residents Group who will attest to this. [NAME_207] have a room that seats 4, [NAME_214] have a room that seats 8 max. Lunch was not included.

286 222 Page 996 - Invoice for £1,098.49 from [NAME_144] - what other quotes were obtained? There is a clear conflict of interest employing an immediate relative of [NAME_79] - the attached schedule, shows that a 192 search was carried out and Land Registry Office copies sought re the applicant; why - when the only correspondence raised at that time was re complaints of poor service. Can the applicant qualify; that if you raise a complaint that a leaseholder/resident/representative will have a 192-search carried out and Land registry Office copies sought -is this normal practice? Why is so much work on issues that should be done by the Management company and its directors -carried out by it seems nonprofessional relatives of the directors? Will not pay £1,098.49. [COMPANY_249] have been used by [COMPANY_223] as they are considerably cheaper than [COMPANY_20]. [NAME_216] are a firm of surveyors, we do not specialise in property or employment law. If there is a dispute under the terms of the lease or an employment issue, then a specialist consultant is required to advise accordingly. There is no conflict of interest with [NAME_79].

292 223 Page 998 - Invoice from [NAME_336] for £85.00 for room hire - whom attended, what was it for and why not use own offices? Will not pay £85.00 See point 221.

286 224 Page 1002 - Invoice for £1,140.50 from [NAME_144] - what other quotes were obtained? There is a clear conflict of interest employing an immediate relative of [NAME_79]. Why is so much work on issues that should be done by the Management company and its directors done by relatives of the directors? The applicant

requires

detailed explanation of all work done. Will not [NAME_211] refers to the facts and matters set out in item 63 above; the nature of legal advice sought and the purpose for this is subject to legal privilege, save in the most general of terms as indicated on the invoice.

292

138

pay £1,140.50.

225 Page 1004 - Invoice from [NAME_270] - why are service charge costs paying for refreshments -whom were they for? Will not pay £31.00. See point 221.

286 226 Pages 1007-1010 - Invoices from [NAME_216] -for Estate Manager and Management fees - all should be reviewed in relation to poor service and management provided. Disputed £31,200. See point 35.

278 2018 All leaseholders are invoiced at the beginning of a year based on a budget agreed with [NAME_207], [NAME_214] and BW Residents Group. Invoices are paid during the year and at the year end the accounts are completed and audited by an Accountants who produce a set of accounts. Any shortfall is collected from leaseholders or credit note issued for an underspend. The 2018 Accounts are part way through the year. A number of re-charges need to be made, which will be done before the year end. The queries have been answered below, however, we do not feel, that [NAME_58] can claim that the accounts are not being run correctly, as we have not yet completed the review of them.

227 Page 1 - Email from [NAME_271] for [NAME_196] for £220. Leaseholders should not be paying for staff licences , as it is not normal within the industry. Will not pay £220.0. See point 2.

138 228 Page 5 -Invoice from [NAME_92] for Key fobs of two different types - why is this as all leaseholders and residents have same type of key fobs - please explain why two different Key fobs for Marine Point Apartments differ from those issued to other leaseholders. The leaseholders within MPA are charged more for additional 148, 150

139

types of key fobs? Disputed fobs.

229 Pages 8 - Invoice from [NAME_92] -work on pedestrian gates - which gates? Disputed £306.48. Ellisons Quay [1099] [map. ref 229].

186 230 Page 10 - Handwritten note -what does this relate to? Disputed These are access fob monies received from people purchasing the fobs. 148, 150 231 Page 11 - Invoice from [NAME_92] .:...for £283.99 -what is this for? Disputed 283.99. This was for an access control point replacement of the microphone and receiver. People were unable to hear response from security when pressing communication button. 165 232 Page 14 - invoice from [NAME_92] -for £66 - why are service charge funds paying for work on a pontoon gate? Will not pay £66. It has been recharged to [NAME_202] [1113].

328 233 Page 16 - Invoice from [NAME_92] for £817.02 for work done to damaged main gate - was the cost recovered from the owner of the vehicle whom caused the damage? Disputed 817.02. This was [ADDRESS] gate. CCTV did not capture the incident. We wrote to leaseholders asking if they knew who had done but there was no uptake.

166 234 Page 18 - Invoice from [NAME_92] for £323.4 for work done to damaged main barrier - was the cost recovered from the owner of the vehicle whom caused the damage? Disputed 323.40. [NAME_9] are working on recovery of the sums spent. The matter is being passed to the insurance company.

166 235 Page 30 - Invoice from [NAME_92]

for

CCTV

Annual Maintenance check for £996.00 please provide contract - please provide other quotes obtained at the time? Disputed £996.00. Page 30 is a receipt for clothing for one security officer. Page 20 is for annual CCTV. As previously detailed, [NAME_207] is happy with the service that [NAME_92] provide. They know our system and all the parts that work together. They also provide the equipment to other users on site so that it works together. 155 236 Page 39 - Invoice from [NAME_124] for de-signing and signing new car at £328.81 - what other quotes were obtained? Disputed £328.81. No alternative quotes were obtained because [NAME_124] already have the artwork therefore did not need to be provided to a new supplier therefore no setting up costs. This is for removing 238

140

the vinyl lettering so that it does not damage the paintwork and adding decals and lettering to new vehicle on several panels. 237 Page 49 - Invoices from [NAME_123] for Fleet commercial Insurance for £3,515.35 - what other quotes were obtained? Disputed £3,515.35. As previously said, we have a large age range of drivers and this is now for 3 vehicles. The cost is split between security and grounds. 244 238 Pages 52 to 69 - Invoices from [NAME_334] for a Business Pre-Paid Credit card - why are service charge costs paying £25.20 per month - no transactions or statements seem to be available - please provide? Disputed. Previously, the Management Company had a Coop Gold card (effectively a credit card). The Coop withdrew these cards. As the Management Company are unable to obtain a credit card or did not want to use cash, a SOLDO card was the only option available. Credit is added to this card once a month and is used for the purchase of fuel. A pre-paid card is the only card available to [NAME_207] due to it not making a profit. It is used to purchase fuel and items needed at BW via the internet. This comes at a cost of £21 + VAT per month which this cost is split between security and grounds (Page 50+58+ 62+ 65 + 69). Pages 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67 & 68 - As fuel is bought the receipt is emailed to [NAME_214] and they pay immediately so that the amount on the card does not drop below the agreed limit. Therefore, [NAME_214] approve each purchase. 263 239 Page 81-85-86-91-92-93 -104-105-106- Invoices from [COMPANY_327] for £3,008.47- why was this firm used and what other quotes were obtained at the time? Disputed 3,008.47. See point 24 - 1st choice security previously known as [NAME_98]. 167 240 Page 90 - Receipt from [NAME_118] £60 - why are service charge funds paying hotel accommodation? Disputed £60 Due to adverse weather the security guard was unable to get home, as other guards were not able to get to the site. The guard offered to stay over, and then work. Otherwise there would have been no security on site. 168

141

241 Page 133 - invoice from [NAME_328] for £132 -why are service charge costs paying for an office clean - why is it [NAME_9] staff are used to clean [NAME_48]/Offices at an operational loss, yet Leaseholders must absorb external contractors costs in cleaning security offices? Will not pay £132.00 This was a deep clean of the offices, following the replacement of the carpet.

261 242 Page 143 - Invoice from [NAME_160] for £908.40 -it is noted Leaseholders are paying costs for [NAME_48] and such says to be invoiced -but cannot see invoice, please provide such and proof of payment and also supply other quotes obtained at the time. It is also noted in point 173 - fire extinguishers were paid for and put in the same areas of [NAME_23] /Boiler Room and Store Room to the value of some £300 but such was never invoiced -why and why was such not done in previous years in 15/16? Disputed; A sum in excess of £1,200 should be sought from [COMPANY_135] for non-payment of fire extinguishers over the period 2015/18 and all other years previously. See point 173.

249 243 Pages 144-14 -Invoices for Health and safety Management services from [NAME_150] - why are service charge costs paying these sums? Moreover, in addition; considerable sums are being paid to [NAME_144] for providing bespoke health and safety policies - why are two firms being used to provide in essence the same service? The applicant is also concerned that [COMPANY_224] carried out sale events and charity events using the main [NAME_10] car park and security staff on 2015/16/17/18, causing increased traffic and persons Recharge has been made and is in the accounts 25 September 2018.

248

142

on the site, with no monitoring. What Health and safety assessment were carried out for these events? [COMPANY_348] charged for use of the car park and time spent by security staff dealing with issues of overparking and other matters on the day? Leaseholders guests were unable to use the main car park on this event day, as it was full due to the event. Will not pay £480.

244 Page 146 - Invoice from Lines Safe for £2,400 -why are service charge costs paying this? Will not pay £2,400. [NAME_273] have replaced [NAME_252] in providing [NAME_212] advice. Again, the costs will be shared between [NAME_9] and [NAME_48]. 248 245 Pages 151-152-153 - Invoice from [COMPANY_135] for quarterly rent of £4,245. This needs to be fully reviewed. - see earlier comments upon same topic. Disputed £12,735. See point 34. 254 246 Pages 154 to 160 - [NAME_216] for Management fees and Estate Manager - why have these risen, have they been reviewed- see earlier comments upon same topic? Disputed £28,950. See point 35 + The Estate Manager cost which this relates has not increased. Pages 428-430 are for the Management Fee which was approved to increase by [NAME_207] and BW Residents Group following a period since 2008 where it has not increased. 278 247 Pages 213 - Invoice from [NAME_274] for £3,178 - this invoice is to [NAME_216] and not [COMPANY_8] and is not a cost for the service charge. Will not pay £3,178. Invoice for the bus stop, the cost of which has been reimbursed from grants from LLC, WLDC, [NAME_11] and the [NAME_11]. 228 248 Page 214 - Invoice from [NAME_110] for £996 - why are they cleaning out compost bins - what is the point of composting if it's not to be recycled within the site - the applicant has seen no potholes filled on the track to Bins -the applicant uses regularly and the track is still with potholes - what other quotes were obtained at the time? Will not pay [NAME_110] removed the items with a mechanical digger. Unfortunately, residents keep putting items that are not compostable within the bins.

174

143

£996.

249 Page 220 - Invoice from [NAME_119] for £2,592 - for painting 36 lampposts and [NAME_137] - I have inspected these - they are not painted and which Lamp-posts in which areas were painted? What other quotes were obtained? Disputed £2,592. Gates are pedestrian gates and they have been done.

229 250 Page 222 - Invoice from [NAME_120] to [NAME_216] for £2,878.08 - this invoice is to [NAME_216] and not [NAME_10] and is not a cost for the service charge. It is noted it is for [NAME_10], where are the actual markings carried out? Will not pay £2,878.08. Re-lining of 20mph lozenges around site, double yellow lines on [ADDRESS], Relining ‘The Landings’ car park.

230 251 Pages 225-228-229-230 - Invoices to [NAME_168] for work carried out totalling £950.48 - what other quotes were obtained? Disputed £950.48. No other quotes as these were all small individual jobs.

271 252 Page 236 -Invoice for insurance from [NAME_143] for fleet commercial, for £3,515.35 -what other quotes obtained and please explain why the same brokers in Hull are always used? Disputed £3,515.35. See point 237.

244 253 Page 253 - Invoice from [COMPANY_135] for £878.38 for Yearly Insurance Charge - evidence of the Insurance, purpose and agreement to pay is required? Disputed £878.38. Refer to point 207.

255 254 Pages 241 to 250 - Invoices from [NAME_334] for a Business Pre-Paid Credit card - why are service charge costs paying £25.20 per month - only two transactions seem to have occurred all year - please provide statements and justify? Disputed. Refer to point 238.

263

144

255 Page 253 - Insurance invoice from [NAME_48], please see earlier comments on this topic - please justify? Disputed £878.38. Repeat of point 253.

255 256 Page 258 - Invoice from [NAME_142] for Commercial Combined for £7,953.79 - please provide policy - what other quotes were obtained? Disputed £7,953.79. Refer to point 52.

244 257 Page 256 - Invoice from [NAME_142] for Commercial Combined for £8,999.57 - please provide policy - what other quotes were obtained? Why have there been two payments for seemingly same insurance to same firm for same cover within 35 days of each invoice? It is then noted there is a credit at Page 257 - but only for £7,701.79 - there seems to be discrepancy's? Disputed. Page 255 was the original invoice received. Amendments were made to the policy and pages 256 (invoice) and 257 and 258 (credits) were received for the amendments to the policy.

244 258 Page 259 - Invoice from [NAME_275] for £1,788 for digging out grass verge between [NAME_259] and [NAME_23] to leave enough room for lorries to swing out re boats entering into [NAME_52] and supplying 74 oak post - this is clearly work carried out for the benefit of the [NAME_89] and [NAME_10] Company - why are leaseholders paying for such? Will not pay £1,788. Actually, this work was carried out to sink posts into the grass verges to stop people parking along this verge and walking along towpath or fishing. It does, in fact, cause problems for lorries delivering boats to [NAME_215] and has no affect to [NAME_202]. 193 259 Page 261 to 265 - Invoices from [NAME_114] for skip Hire - where are the skips used and what alternative quotes were obtained? Disputed £1,100. Refer to Point 55.

231 260 Pages 271 to 367 - in relation to invoices for landscaping and cleaning toilets are of serious concern in that the following areas of poor accounting, undercharging and lack of correct hours spent as recorded. Refer to point 56.

146

a. [COMPANY_71] - [NAME_192] have only paid £122.05 from November 2017 through to June 2018 for works carried within [NAME_1] and [NAME_23], despite Refer to point 56.

146

145

every month of 2018 the gardening team spending on average 6hrs per week on [NAME_1] area alone carrying out weeding, maintenance, grass cutting and water feature cleaning, every week - however only a few invoices why?

b. [NAME_48] only paid £2,779.79 for 225hrs cleaning toilets and landscaping work, painting and cleaning and power washing jetty. Refer to point 56.

146 c. [COMPANY_224] paid £585.84 for 48 hrs Refer to point 56. 146 d. [NAME_225] paid £210 for Landscaping as seen in the latest 2018 accounts up to June 2018 Refer to point 56.

146 e. The labour rate charged for [COMPANY_305], [COMPANY_135] and [COMPANY_224] is £9.32 plus 0.85p per hour "Employment costs" the costs do not include materials used, petrol for the lawnmowers, weed killer, wear and tear or any other cost. The charge per hour is £10.17. Refer to point 56.

146

f. Reviewing the invoices [NAME_225] paid for the same services provided to the companies above but at a rate of £26.25 per hour, which is a 158.11% difference to the above companies. Refer to point 56.

146 g. The national employed contract rate in 2018 as per the Association of National Landscapers contractors rate was £17.50 per hour. This excludes use of any equipment/petrol, pesticides or any other materials used in the course of the work, like gloves, bags. Refer to point 56.

146

h. A normal contractors rate including use of equipment and charging for material is £35/40 per hour.

Refer to point 56.

146

146

i. [NAME_9] has been manifestly undercharging [COMPANY_305] or indeed charging them at all and [COMPANY_135] to benefit those directors and their respective companies. The income received from [COMPANY_71] and [NAME_48] and [COMPANY_224] is wholly and manifestly inadequate and not reasonable. Refer to point 56.

146 j. There has been a substantial loss of income to the service charge costs due to charging directors companies substantially much lesser rates. Refer to point 56.

146 k. The applicant is not convinced, that all the hours have been charged as time sheets are not fully recorded. Refer to point 56.

146 l. Notwithstanding the above, it is clear and evident that the rates charged to [NAME_13]/[NAME_48] and [NAME_89], do not cover the costs of materials, in essence will not cover overall staff costs per hour and are operating at a loss to benefit these companies. Refer to point 56.

146 m. The undercharging needs to be reviewed as it is not reasonable. Disputed. Refer to point 56.

146 261 There is also a concern that through bad management and wilful and mis/use of staff and service charge income, staff paid for and funded by the service charge are called in on Bank holidays for [NAME_48] to clean toilets at a loss to Leaseholders within the service charge, but the use of a contractor to de-grit in winter time at considerable expenses that it was considered not Not at a loss to leaseholders as the staff are paid normal hourly rate on bank holidays. Refer to point 56.

329

147

appropriate to ask staff to attend work early, to de-grit roads -there is some severe disparity to prioritise and use of the workforce to benefit [NAME_79]'s company.

262 Page 382 - Invoice from [NAME_11] for £169 to [NAME_216] - this is not a recoverable item under HMRC rules of taxable allowances as it is not in [NAME_9] name- what is this for? Will not pay £169. This is for a course for a member of grounds staff.

183 263 Page 402 - Invoice from [COMPANY_335] - final 50% invoice for gritting - £5,086.82 - during the severe weather of 2018 - the roads within [NAME_10] were not gritted, residents had to dig their own way out and grit the road themselves the £10,172.48 - cost has been a blatant waste of monies. Will not pay £10,172.48 which has been paid in full to [NAME_266]. Refer to Point 213. [NAME_207] and BW Residents’ group approved the cost.

251 264 Page 413 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £354.12 - work is done on a street light within [NAME_1] in March 2018 - why as [NAME_1] have not been handed over at that stage - I see no invoice to [NAME_13] - why? Disputed £354.12.

Jan 2018 was handover because that is when we accept that the development finishes and we took over for the repairs. [NAME_211] refers to the facts and matters set out in item 13 above.

200 265 Page 414 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £733.22 - it is noted again work is done on a street light within [NAME_1] in March 2018 - why? [NAME_1] have not been handed over at that stage - I see no invoice to [COMPANY_71] - why? Further I see repairs to lights in boater car park - is this not chargeable to [COMPANY_276]? Disputed Jan 2018 was handover because that is when we accept that the development finishes and we took over for the repairs. [NAME_211] refers to the facts and matters set out in item 13 above.

200

148

£733.22.

266 Page 415 - Invoice from [NAME_104] for £627.70 - please provide the list of lighting repairs as provided by security? £627.70 Disputed. Refer to Point 45.

175 267 Page 416 - Invoice from [NAME_48] for £620.05 - the service charge funds pay for repairs of street lights - yet this invoice shows a lighting column charge - please explain? Disputed £620.05. Refer to point 196.

232 268 Page 417 - Invoice from [NAME_216] for £480 - why are service charge costs paying for this? Disputed £480.

Refer to point 59.

281 269 Page 418 - Invoice from [NAME_144] for £100 for GDPR Training session - who is this session for and why are service charge costs using [NAME_144] - numerous points made within as to merit in using [NAME_144]? Will not pay £100.

Attended by [NAME_29] on behalf of [NAME_207]. Course was also attended by other companies including [NAME_214], [NAME_215], [NAME_202] and course cost split between all.

300 270 Page 419 - Invoice from [NAME_216] for £357 for producing Handbooks - why are service charge costs paying extra for this? Will not pay £357. This is the cost of printing 350 copies of the updated leaseholders’ handbook and does not fall within [NAME_214] management agreement. 283 271 Page 420 - Invoice from [NAME_144] for £495 - for her own generic GDPR Suite - what is this - what other quotes were obtained - please send a copy of the suite - where is it held - see notes on same topic of using [NAME_144] herein? Will not pay £495.

GDPR suite of documents was purchased by [NAME_207] so that it may produce policies and notices.

300 272 Page 421 - Invoice from [NAME_144] for £200 - what other quotes were obtained - why are service charge funds being paid to use a relative of [NAME_199] An analysis is on the invoice. Advice in dealing with complaint by [NAME_58]. 292

149

[NAME_80], what qualifications does [NAME_144] have? Will not pay £200.

273 Page 422 - Invoice from [NAME_277] for £422 - what does this relate to in regard to a lighting plan within [NAME_10] - please send copy of lighting plan? Disputed £194.68. This is for producing an up to date lighting and security equipment plan.

171 274 Page 423 - Invoice from [NAME_216] for £1,062 for debt chasing letters - why is this fee not incorporated in the Management fee? Will not pay £1,062. Refer to point 62.

278 275 Page 423 - Invoice from [NAME_144] for £675 - what other quotes were obtained - what is SAR of which she was considering? Bespoke Privacy Notice - it is noted [NAME_178] deals with matter raised with Mr R [NAME_80], clear conflict impartiality. See notes on same topic of using [NAME_144] herein? Will not pay £675. We believe this is page 425. Breakdown of invoice is on the letter. Bespoke privacy notice is for employment contracts.

330 276 Pages 426-427 - Invoices from [NAME_311] for £4,200 are some £2,000 too expensive for the type of accounts. The applicant can assert this as due to business interests and his current employer the applicant can assert such costs are excessive. Will only pay £2,000.

[NAME_278] know the site and understand service charge accounts. They have dealt with the apportionments and the VAT calculations on a mixed use site that are more complex.

234 277 Pages 428-430/417 - Invoices from [NAME_216] for £27,030 - what other quotes obtained - poor value for monies, poor customer services - when was such thoroughly reviewed. Disputed. See Point 35. Reviewed at 2018 Budget meeting and agreed by [NAME_207] and BW residents’ group.

278

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts contained in the Respondents’ Statement of Case are true. I am duly authorised by the Respondents to sign this Statement.

150

Name: ………………………………………………………….

Position: ………………………………………………………… Annex 2

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/32UE/LSC/2018/0036

Property : 34 [NAME_1], Lincoln, Lincolnshire, [POSTCODE]

Applicant Represented by : [NAME_2] [NAME_5]

Respondents (1)

(2)

[NAME_15], Counsel [NAME_17], [COMPANY_20], solicitors

Tribunal Members : Judge C. P. Tonge, LLB, BA

Date : 3 April 2019

151

DECISION UPON AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT THE CASE © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

152

The background to the application

1. This case comes before the Tribunal by way of an application dated 6 May 2018 from the Applicant, [NAME_2], the long leaseholder of a terraced house at 34 [NAME_1], Lincoln, Lincolnshire, [POSTCODE], "the property". The Applicant made it clear in the application that [NAME_5], who holds financial power of attorney for the Applicant is authorised to act on the Applicants behalf.

3. The First Respondent is [COMPANY_22], the management company. The second Respondent is [COMPANY_14], the landlord of the property. Both Respondents are represented by [COMPANY_280], Solicitors and [NAME_15] of Counsel.

4. [NAME_26] issued Directions on 6 July 2018. Direction 5 requires the Applicant's statement of case to be "done by means of a schedule or spreadsheet arranged in date order with separate columns to show (a) each disputed item; (b) the reasons why the item is disputed; (c) the amount (if any) the Applicant is willing to pay; and (d) a space for the Respondent's comments on each item."

5. On 17 August 2018, following an application made by the Applicant the above Directions were amended by a further Direction being made by a Tribunal Judge. " The Respondent should provide the Applicant with facilities to inspect and copy the relevant invoices and receipts for the years in question."

6. On 24 August 2018 the Directions were further amended by a letter being sent to the parties. "The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has now confirmed that facilities to inspect and copy relevant invoices and receipts will be made available to the Applicant and that it is the Applicants intention to have completed this exercise by the end of August 2018. The Tribunal accordingly order(s) the Applicant to submit an amended statement of case, which must comply with Direction 5, by 21 September 2018."

7. On 15 October 2018 the Applicant served his amended statement of case (served late) and it is not set out in accordance with Direction 5, in that although it could be described as a schedule it is not in columns. Where

153

the Applicant has indicated how much he would be prepared to pay it is consistently indicated as the whole amount is in issue.

8. On 30 October 2018 both Respondents served a joint application that the cases against them should be struck out.

9. On 13 November 2018 the Applicant served a response to that application.

10. On 3 April 2019 the case in relation to the application to strike out was heard at Lincoln County Court, Tribunal Room 2. This being a preliminary hearing there was no need to inspect the property before the hearing.

THE LAW

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Section 18, meaning of service charge and relevant costs.

Section 27A, Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction

Section 19, Limitation of service charges: reasonableness. (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period— (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and

154

(b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.

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

Overriding objective and parties’ obligation to co-operate with the Tribunal Rule 3.—(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. (2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes— (a)dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties and of the Tribunal; (b)avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings; (c)ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully in the proceedings; (d)using any special expertise of the Tribunal effectively; and (e)avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues. (3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it— (a)exercises any power under these Rules; or (b)interprets any rule or practice direction. (4) Parties must— (a)help the Tribunal to further the overriding objective; and (b)co-operate with the Tribunal generally.

Failure to comply with rules, practice directions or Tribunal directions

155

Rule 8.—(1) An irregularity resulting from a failure to comply with any provision of these Rules, a practice direction or a direction does not of itself render void the proceedings or any step taken in the proceedings. (2) If a party has failed to comply with a requirement in these Rules, a practice direction or a direction, the Tribunal may take such action as the Tribunal considers just, which may include— (a)waiving the requirement; (b)requiring the failure to be remedied; (c)exercising its power under rule 9 (striking out a party’s case); (d)exercising its power under paragraph (5); or (e)barring or restricting a party’s participation in the proceedings.

Striking out a party’s case Rule 9.—(1) The proceedings or case, or the appropriate part of them, will automatically be struck out if the applicant has failed to comply with a direction that stated that failure by the applicant to comply with the direction by a stated date would lead to the striking out of the proceedings or that part of them. (2) The Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings or case if the Tribunal— (a)does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or case or that part of them; and (b)does not exercise any power under rule 6(3)(n)(i) (transfer to another court or tribunal) in relation to the proceedings or case or that part of them. (3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings or case if— (a)the applicant has failed to comply with a direction which stated that failure by the applicant to comply with the direction could lead to the striking out of the proceedings or case or that part of it;

156

(b)the applicant has failed to co-operate with the Tribunal such that the Tribunal cannot deal with the proceedings fairly and justly; (c)the proceedings or case are between the same parties and arise out of facts which are similar or substantially the same as those contained in a proceedings or case which has been decided by the Tribunal; (d)the Tribunal considers the proceedings or case (or a part of them), or the manner in which they are being conducted, to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Tribunal; or (e)the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the applicant’s proceedings or case, or part of it, succeeding.

Relevant provisions of the lease in respect of the application to strike out

11. Page 1 of the lease, prescribed information clauses, Parties to the lease, LR3. The Landlord is stated to be [COMPANY_14] and The management company is stated to be [COMPANY_22].

12. Page 4 of the lease, [COMPANY_14] is stated to be the lessor and [COMPANY_22] is stated to be the management company.

13. Page 7 of the lease, at clause 5.2, it states that if the management company shall default in respect of any of its obligations to the lessee (the Applicant) the lessor shall itself comply with such obligations in substitution for the management company.

Written case on behalf of the Respondents in respect of the application to strike out 14. The Respondents' apply for either mandatory strike outs or discretionary strike outs of the cases against both Respondents, in the alternative they request variations to the Directions already made in the case.

15. The First Respondent's case is that the Applicant's statement if case of 15 October 2018 does not comply with Direction 5 of the Directions of 6 July 2018. The amended statement of case (served late) still does not comply with Direction 5 and the Respondent contends that the statement of case fails to make out a case that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and as such should be struck out. It fails to identify what the dispute is or what the Applicant is willing (if anything) to pay with each disputed item.

157

16. The Second Respondent repeats and joins the First Respondent in his application. In addition the second Respondent states that he is a house builder, who is not the landlord or freeholder of the property and is not party to the lease. It has no control of or dealings with the service charge. As such, in addition to the matters relied upon by the First Respondent, the case against him should be struck out.

Written case on behalf of the Applicant in respect of the application to strike out

17. The Applicant's reply to the application to strike out his claim is that although the first statement of case did not comply with Direction 5, the amended statement of case does. It is a schedule organised in year order and makes clear reference to invoices that are identified by reference to accounts pages. The cause of action being whether or not the service charge costs have been reasonably incurred.

18. Further, the Applicant states that his lease makes it clear that the Second Respondent is his Landlord. His case is that both Respondents' have a case to answer.

The hearing

19. The hearing commenced at 11am on 3 April 2019. [NAME_6] being present on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant had missed his flight to England in returning from Vietnam and was therefore not in attendance. The Tribunal having regard to the information contained in paragraph 1. above decided to permit [NAME_281] to represent the interests of the Applicant.

20. Present on behalf of the Respondents was [NAME_179] who works on a voluntary basis for the Second Respondent whose sole Director is [NAME_284], who is [NAME_179]'s father in law. The Tribunal was informed that [NAME_284] has given permission for [NAME_179] to represent the Respondents. [NAME_15] of Counsel and a representative of his instructing solicitors [NAME_17], were also present.

21. [NAME_15], on behalf of the Respondents, agreed that the Second Respondent was, subject to the terms of the lease, at all material times the landlord of the Applicant. Even so he sought to persuade the Tribunal that there was no realistic prospect of any order being made against the Second Respondent in this case, being that the Second Respondent has nothing at all to do with the service charges in this case. Having said that, [NAME_15] contended that it had been agreed between the Respondents that the Second Respondent would be responsible for half of the costs in the case and it was unfair to keep the Second Respondent in the case in

158

these circumstances. As such the case against him should be struck out whether or not the case against the First Respondent was struck out.

22. More generally, [NAME_15] submitted that there have been three breaches of Direction 5 by the Applicant. The first was that the statement of case served on 15 October 2018 does not comply with Direction 5, in there being a total failure to comply with the Direction. The second is that the time limit set for service of the statement of case of 21 September 2018 was not met. It was served late, although conceding that this of its self was not so vital a breach.

23. The third breach is that the statement of case now being relied upon does not comply with Direction 5. It is accepted as a schedule, but it is not in columns, it fails to state against each disputed item the reason for the dispute and it fails to state what (if anything) the applicant is willing to pay in relation to that item, always contending that the Applicant is not willing to pay anything. [NAME_15] submitted that this is a fundamental breach of Direction 5 in that it requires the Respondent to not only serve the invoice, but also then to prove that the expenditure was reasonable, when normally production of the invoice would suffice as evidence that the cost was reasonable, because that is what the Respondent had to pay for the service in question.

24. [NAME_15] also took issue with several items in dispute that request that the Respondent produce proof that the invoice has been paid, this putting the Respondent to the added burden of having to produce bank statements. [NAME_15] also took issue with the Applicant asking the Respondents to produce quotes that may have been obtained by the management agent in relation to work done.

25. [NAME_58] submitted that the Second Respondent is his sons Landlord (this now being agreed) and as such should remain a respondent in the case, relying on clause 5.2 of the lease.

26. A summary of [NAME_58]'s submissions are that the area in which the property is situated has several companies active, including the two Respondents and that they have the same Directors so that it is necessary, in his view, for the Respondents to make it clear that any service charge cost is properly payable under the terms of the lease and should not have been by another company situated in that area. There are many invoices that are challenged that suggest that another company should have paid it. Further, he informed the Tribunal that there is a complicating factor in that whilst an area is under development, costs that might otherwise be service charge costs are development costs and only become chargeable as service charges when the area has been "handed over" after development has been completed. It is therefore important to know when the site containing the property was "handed over".

159

27. [NAME_58] submitted that the Applicant knew that the first statement of case was such that it did not comply with Direction 5, but that it would not be able to comply because the Applicant did not have sufficient information to be able to comply. Further, he submitted that it had been necessary for the Applicant to apply for the order made on 17 August 2018, to make it possible for the Applicant to comply with Direction 5.

28. [NAME_58] produced the result of an email search with the [NAME_285]. web site seeking guidance as to how to set out a schedule in the manner described in Direction 5 and the search provided no guidance at all. The Applicant had found a copy of a statement if claim and had done his best to follow that as a guide. The Applicant had done his best to follow that guide , amending it to suit the needs of the case. The Respondents have been provided with a "word" email copy of the amended statement of case and it will therefore be easy for the Respondents to utilise that statement of case as the basis for their own statement of case, typing in their comments in the appropriate place.

29. [NAME_58] submitted that some of the invoices do not make it clear where work was done or for whom it was done. The Applicant has however been told that the management agent is in the practice of obtaining quotes to expensive items of work. The Applicant therefore requests such quotes as exist to be produced as they may establish where the work was done and for which company.

The deliberations

30. The Tribunal determines that the Second Respondent is the Landlord of the Applicant and accepts the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant that the landlord should remain a respondent in the case. The Second Respondent would be subject to an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, if any such order is made and clause 5.2 of the lease makes the Second Respondent potentially liable if the First Respondent should default. It is [NAME_39] and just to come to this decision. (The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013.)

31. The Tribunal having considered the written evidence and oral submissions in this case determines that it will not strike out the case against the Respondents for failure to comply with Direction 5. The reasons for this decision are as follow.

32. It is [NAME_39] and just to come to this decision. ( Rule 3, The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

33.The Tribunal accepts the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant that the Applicant could not properly comply with direction 5 in submitting the

160

Applicant's first statement of case, because there was insufficient information available to the Applicant.

34. The Respondents do not take the failure to meet the time limit imposed as a serious breach of the amended Direction and the Tribunal agrees with the Respondents that this is a [NAME_39] approach to take.

35. The Tribunal decides that the Applicants statement of case does raise issues that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide upon, namely whether or not the service charges in question can be charged as service charge costs under the lease and whether or not they are reasonable.

36. The Tribunal accepts the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant that where there are numerous companies active in the same area with similar management, it is possible that honest mistakes could be made as to who should pay for what. In these circumstances it is reasonable to establish payability under the terms of the lease.

37. The Tribunal accepts the submissions on behalf of the Applicant that production of any quotes that the management agent already has in its possession might help all parties in the final determination of this case. It is reasonable for the Applicant to ask that such documents already in the possession of the management agent be produced in evidence.

38. The Tribunal waives the breaches of Direction 5, as discussed above. (Rule 8(2)(a) The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Property Chamber) Rules 2013.)

39. [NAME_179] expressed discomfort that there is a suggestion of improper behaviour made in the Applicants statement of case. The Tribunal wishes to make it very clear that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider improper behaviour. It approaches the case on the understanding that all witnesses and parties are being honest with each other and the Tribunal. The Tribunal will only consider whether or not a service charge cost is payable under the terms of the lease and whether the cost is reasonable.

40. Issues as to costs will be considered at the end of the final hearing.

The Decision

41. The Tribunal decides that it will not strike out any part of this case and that it waives the breaches of Directions by the Applicant in this case.

42. Issues as to costs will be reserved until the end of the final hearing.

161

43. This is not a final determination of the case. There are therefore no statutory rights of appeal against this decision.

Judge Tonge

162

Annex 3

Property : 34 [NAME_1], Lincoln, Lincolnshire, [POSTCODE]

Applicant Represented by : [NAME_2] [NAME_5]

Respondents (1)

(2)

[NAME_227], [COMPANY_20], solicitors

Tribunal Members : Judge C. P. Tonge, LLB, BA

Date : 6 February 2020

DECISION UPON THE SECOND APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT THE CASE, TO SET ASSIDE A DECISION TO ADJOURN A HEARING DATE AND FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

163

The background to the application

3. The First Respondent is [COMPANY_22], the management company. The second Respondent is [COMPANY_14], the landlord of the property. Both Respondents are represented by [COMPANY_280], Solicitors.

4. [NAME_26] issued Directions on 6 July 2018. On 17 August 2018, following an application made by the Applicant the above Directions were amended. On 24 August 2018 the Directions were further amended.

5. On 30 October 2018 both Respondents served a joint application that the cases against them should be struck out (the first such application).

6. On 3 April 2019 the case in relation to the application to strike out the application was heard in a case management hearing at Lincoln County Court, Judge Tonge sitting alone. The Tribunal declined to strike out the Applicant's case, issuing a Decision to that effect and additional Directions. Those Directions were amended on 14 July 2019.

7. The Tribunal has been informed that hearing bundles have now been prepared and the final hearing of this matter was due to commence at Nottingham on 3 February 2019, with a time estimate of five days.

8. On 23 December 2019 the tribunal office was made aware that the Applicant in this case was not available to attend this hearing date, being out of the country in Asia and an application was made on that basis by [NAME_5] for the hearing date to be vacated.

9. This application to vacate the hearing date was agreed to by Judge Tonge on 3 January 2020, deciding that it would be unfair and unjust to hear this complicated case in the absence of the Applicant. However, due to the age

164

of the case Judge Tonge indicated that "this case must be brought to a conclusion so that once fixed again, the tribunal will be highly unlikely to agree to yet another adjournment". This decision necessitated dates to avoid being obtained to re list the hearing date. It appears to be the case that there was some delay in notifying the Respondents of this fact.

10. As a result of the trial date being adjourned, on 28 January 2020, the Respondents served upon the tribunal office an application (1) to seek an order to have the Tribunal set aside the decision to vacate the trial and reinstate the trial as previously listed to commence 3 February 2020 (2) to strike out the Applicant's case as being an abuse of process (3) for disclosure of the power of attorney referred to by [NAME_6] over the affairs of the Applicant.

11. On 29 January 2020, [NAME_5] objected to the Respondents application and asked for time to further respond to the Respondents application. Both the application and request for time were put before Judge Tonge who decided to grant [NAME_58] until 4pm on 5 February 2020 to make further representations. No further representations have been made.

12. On 6 February 2020, the Tribunal, Judge Tonge sitting alone, considered the merits of the application.

Determination of the issues

13. The first issue raised is to seek an order to have the Tribunal set aside the decision to vacate the trial and reinstate the trial as previously listed to commence 3 February 2020.

14. The Tribunal notes the representations made by both parties, but does not agree with the Respondent that there has been a breach of Rule 7(7) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (S. I. 2013/1169) "the Rules". That rule deals with the making of a Direction. In this case there have been numerous Directions, referred to above. These Directions have brought the case to a state of readiness for the final hearing. The listing of the case is an administrative matter, undertaken after consulting all those involved, including the court that is to accommodate the hearing. This case was given a date for the case to commence. As a matter of fairness to the Applicant, that date had to be changed. As a matter of practicality, the hearing could not now commence on the listed date. The hearing will take place in due course. There has been no prejudice caused to either party.

15. The Tribunal will not set aside the decision to vacate the trial dates. New trial dates, with an estimated duration of five days, will be notified to the parties when fixed.

165

16. The second issue raised is for the Tribunal to make an order to strike out the Applicant's case as being an abuse of process.

17. The Tribunal notes the representations made by both parties. The Tribunal does not agree with the Respondents' assertion that [NAME_58]'s application, seeking to ensure that the Applicant can attend the hearing of this case is an abuse of the process. The Tribunal agreed to vacate the trial date and relist it because the overriding objective of fairness and justice dictate that this was the only proper course of action open it (rule 3 of the Rules). The Tribunal will not strike out the Applicant's case.

18. The third issue raised is for disclosure of the power of attorney referred to by [NAME_6] over the affairs of the Applicant.

19. Directions have been issued on 6 July 2019 (amended twice) and 3 April 2019 (amended once). The case is now ready for trail and as such a further Direction to disclose the power of attorney will not assist the parties to prepare for the final hearing. The trail has been adjourned to permit the Applicant to appear at the trial himself and as such [NAME_58] will not be seeking to rely upon his power of attorney. The Tribunal will not make the further Direction now being sought.

20. However, in the event that the Applicant is not present at the final hearing then the Respondents will be at liberty to challenge [NAME_5]'s right to act on behalf of the Applicant, in the Applicant's absence. Rule 14 (1) and (2) deal with this (the Rules). In the event that this were to happen, the Applicant must have delivered to the Tribunal and the other parties a written notice indicating that [NAME_5] is so authorised to act, this including [NAME_40]'s home address. The Tribunal would further require that this authority be signed by the Applicant and be delivered at least 7 days before the trial is to commence. Failure to comply with this Direction will be taken into account by the Tribunal in deciding whether or not to strike out the Applicant's case at that point.

The Decision

21. The Tribunal decides that it will not set aside its decision to vacate the trial date, will not strike out any part of this case, but will order disclosure as required in paragraph 20, above.

22. This is not a final determination of the case. There are therefore no statutory rights of appeal against this decision.

Judge Tonge

166

Annex 4, Directions of 22 December 2020

Property : 34 [NAME_1], Lincoln, Lincolnshire, [POSTCODE]

Applicant Represented by : [NAME_2] [NAME_5]

Respondents (1)

(2)

[COMPANY_20], solicitors

Tribunal Members : Judge C. P. Tonge, LLB, BA

Date : 22 December 2020

DIRECTIONS OF 22 DECEMBER 2020 © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

167

Background to these Directions

1. This case had been re-listed for its final hearing to be held between 7 September 2020 and 11 September 2020, on the basis of it being a full hearing in a tribunal hearing room. As the date fixed for the hearing grew closer the Tribunal received notification that due to Covid 19 restrictions it was not possible for the hearing to go ahead in that format.

2. The Tribunal members were provided with the hearing bundles to prepare for the final hearing and whilst that was underway they were informed that the hearing could no longer take place in a hearing room. Bearing in mind that the Parties and witnesses were all available for the hearing dates, the Tribunal considered whether the hearing as planned could be dealt with in some other format. Having considered the content of the evidential bundles the Tribunal decided that the case is in fact suitable for a hearing via the full video hearing platform. This would still permit cross examination of witnesses, if a Party thought this necessary. The Tribunal commenced to organise this alternative method of hearing the case. However, the Applicant indicated that he was not able to take part in such a hearing because of the lack of band width and suitable computer equipment.

3. The Respondents' offered to assist the Applicant to resolve these issues in that they would provide the Applicant with a room with the required band width and a computer capable of linking into the full video hearing. However, the Applicant made it clear that he would not accept any assistance from the Respondents' to resolve these technical issues and that only a hearing with the Parties and witnesses in a tribunal room would be acceptable to the Applicant. The hearing was adjourned, whilst the Tribunal considered the options available to hear the case in a way that best accords with the wishes of the Applicant, but that is possible under the Covid-19 restrictions. It has now been decided that this case can be heard as a hybrid hearing.

4. Directions, dated 16 November 2020, were issued with a view to re-listing this case for its final hybrid hearing, sitting at the Tribunal's own hearing rooms in Manchester. It has been made clear by the Applicant that he objects to such a hearing taking place, still requiring a full hearing in a tribunal room. However, that is not possible at present. The Tribunal has no way of knowing whether such a hearing will be possible in the near future, if at all.

5. It has also been made clear by the Applicant that he objects to the Tribunal sitting in Manchester, but when enquiries were made as to the availability of a hearing room that could fulfil the requirements as decided upon by the Tribunal for a hybrid hearing to take place, the Tribunal was not offered a hearing room closer to Lincoln than Manchester.

168

6. It has subsequently been necessary to issue further Directions, dated 7 December 2020. These two sets of Directions set out the background to those Directions in more detail. There is no need to repeat that here.

7. The Directions of 7 December 2020 provided an opportunity for the Respondent's to consider an application made by the Applicant for disclosure as referred to in the Applicant's "Response to Directions issued on 16 November 2020", paragraphs 6 and 7.

8. The Tribunal notes that it was clear that the Applicant's email "Response to Directions issued on 16 November 2020" had only been sent to the Tribunal, it had not been sent to the Respondents and was therefore in breach of the Directions issued by [NAME_26], [NAME_286], issued on 6 July 2018. It was therefore necessary for the new Directions of 7 December 2020 ([NAME_287]) to require that the Applicant's email "Response to Directions issued on 16 November 2020" be sent to the Respondents. The Respondents have supplied a response, dated 16 December 2020.

9. The Applicant had sent an email to the tribunal office on 14 September 2020, an attachment to which deals with 17 witnesses that the Applicant wanted to attend the then already vacated hearing that had been due to commence on 7 September 2020. On 10 December 2020, an email was sent to the Applicant at the request of Judge Tonge. The purpose of that email was to explain to the unrepresented Applicant the circumstances in which a witness in a Residential Property Tribunal case can be required to give evidence orally, during a hearing. That email requested information to help identify the witness statements of these 17 witnesses that the Applicant referred to in the 11 lever arch files that the two hearing bundles contain. That information has not been provided.

10. The Applicant has served a document entitled "Re Response to Tribunal Directions of 7 December 2020 and email dated 10 December 2020". Again, it is clear that this has been sent to the Tribunal, but not to the Respondents in breach of the Directions issued by [NAME_26], [NAME_286], issued on 6 July 2018. The Tribunal will therefore Direct that this document be served upon the Respondents.

11. In that document the Applicant seeks to raise a complaint that the Tribunal has failed to protect the Applicant and his witnesses from intimidation in contempt of the Tribunal proceedings (paragraph 1 of the document). The Tribunal has already explained to the Parties when and in what circumstances the Tribunal can deal with a contempt of its proceedings. The allegations of intimidation being raised by the Applicant are of conduct that is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to deal with. If such conduct occurs the Parties have to rely upon the Police to deal with

169

them. It is entirely wrong for the Applicant to accuse the Tribunal of failing to act in circumstances where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to act, especially so when the Applicant has already been given advice on the point (Directions of 7 December 2020, paragraph 10).

12. The Applicant (paragraph 2 of the document) points out that hotel accommodation may not be available in Manchester because of Covid-19 restrictions. The Tribunal points out that all persons attending the hybrid hearing tribunal room will either have to travel substantial distances to and from the hearing on a daily basis or obtain hotel accommodation, including the members of the Tribunal. The Parties should note that attendance at a tribunal hearing is an exception to the normal Covid 19 restrictions and hotel accommodation would at present be available to be purchased in a tier 3 Covid restricted area. Attendance at a tribunal hearing is also an exception to any Covid 19 restriction upon travel. The tribunal administration will continue to monitor the situation.

13. The Applicant seeks to object to the case proceeding without an inspection of the area in which the property is situated (paragraph 3 of the document). The Tribunal agreed to make an inspection of the area at the Case Management Hearing held on 3 April 2019, at a time well before the Covid 19 pandemic had commenced. The inspection being scheduled to last one hour.

14. The members of the Tribunal did not see the hearing bundles until it was time to prepare for the full hearing, at which time the Tribunal members were able to make a determination that the Tribunal did not need to inspect the area because the evidence in those bundles (including the detailed plan of the area) are such the Tribunal would not be assisted by an inspection. Even so, the Tribunal granted liberty for either party to provide additional evidence in the form of photographs of the area if either party thought that to be necessary. Originally, in the Directions of 16 November 2020, a time limit was set for this additional evidence to be served by 2 December 2020, extended at the Applicant's request to 21 December 2020. It is entirely wrong for the Applicant to claim that he cannot have a [NAME_39] hearing in the absence of an inspection in these circumstances.

15. The Applicant seeks to complain about the advice given to him relating to witnesses (paragraph 4 and 7 of the document), whilst at the same time failing to assisting the Tribunal by providing the information requested by the Tribunal in the email of 10 December 2020. Further, the Applicant reminds the Tribunal that he has applied for 16 witness summonses at some point in the past (identified by the Tribunal as being in an email, dated 5 July 2019).

16. The Tribunal dealt with this request for witness summonses in Directions, dated 14 July 2019, refusing to grant the witness summonses as there was

170

no good reason to make such an imposition upon those persons (Directions of 14 July 2019, paragraphs 7, 9 and 11). The Tribunal does not understand why the Applicant wishes to refer back to this, but has checked the list of 16 names for whom witness summonses were sought in July 2019, only 5 of these potential witnesses are repeated in the list of 17 witnesses that the Applicant seeks to have attend the hearing. The Tribunal has checked its records and can find no other application for witness summonses. The Tribunal having given advice in the email of 10 December 2020, takes no further action relating to this point. A witness summons will not be issued without a compelling reason for this to be done.

17. The Applicant seeks to make a point clear (paragraph 6 of the document), but in doing so entirely misrepresents what happened in the run up to the hearing listed for 7 September 2020. The facts are accurately stated above and have been repeated here to make it clear what happened in the run up to the last adjourned hearing date. It is entirely wrong for the Applicant to misrepresent facts in this way.

18. The Tribunal reprints here 2 parts of the Applicant's response, dated 3 September 2020, to the offer by the Respondents to provide a room with band width and an appropriate computer, so that the video hearing proposed by the Tribunal could go ahead. "The applicant nor his father will use any equipment provided by the respondents, nor will we use any room paid for by the respondents as we have stated, such is exercising pressure to comply with a hearing they want, which we simply do not agree to, using a room paid for by whoever, as the client is not identified in [NAME_288] email. We have made our position perfectly clear."Secondly, "A face to face hearing in open court is essential as is a site inspection". The email from the Applicant was very clear, the Applicant refused to take part in the video hearing.

Determination as to issues relating to disclosure

19. The Applicant seeks disclosure of bank statements (paragraph 6 of the document of 25 November 2020). The Respondents' object on the basis that the statements are confidential and will not assist the Tribunal in deciding whether the lease permits any service charge to be demanded or the reasonableness of such a charge. Further, the Applicant includes as an attachment to the document "Re Response to Tribunal Directions of 7 December 2020 and email dated 10 December 2020" an email from the Respondents' to a [NAME_290] that suggests that in a case involving Mr [NAME_292] the Respondents' are willing to produce the bank statements in issue, calling into question the suggestion that the bank statements contain confidential information.

171

20. The Tribunal will adjourn this issue to be heard as a preliminary issue at the final hearing of this case. The Respondents', must bring with them to that hearing copies of the bank statements in question in an un-redacted and a redacted form. The Tribunal is led to believe that both Parties are fully aware of the bank statements involved, if that is not the case the Respondents must ask for clarification from the Applicant by 4pm, 8 January 2021. If such a request is made, the Applicant must respond, making it clear which bank statements are at issue, to the Respondents' solicitors by 4pm, 15 January 2021. All such communication may be by email.

21. The Applicant seeks disclosure as to development-wide apportionment of service charges (paragraph 7 (a) of the document of 25 November 2020). The Respondents' contend that this has already been done. The Tribunal will make no order as to disclosure at this stage, but is prepared to hear submissions as a preliminary point at the final hearing if the Applicant seeks to continue with the issue.

22. The Applicant seeks disclosure as to the timing of handover of parts of the development (paragraph 7 (b) of the document of 25 November 2020). The Applicant contends that service charges can only be charged after the part of the development concerned has been handed over. The Respondents' contend that the lease makes it clear what service charges can be charged, without hand over making any difference. The Tribunal will make no order as to disclosure at this stage, but is prepared to hear submissions as a preliminary point at the final hearing if the Applicant seeks to continue with the issue.

23. The Applicant seeks disclosure of cross guarantee agreements relating to the development (paragraph 7 (c) of the document of 25 November 2020). The Respondents' point out that the Applicant has not stated why this could assist the Tribunal in deciding whether the lease permits any service charge to be demanded or the reasonableness of such a charge. The Tribunal will make no order as to disclosure at this stage, but is prepared to hear submissions as a preliminary point at the final hearing if the Applicant seeks to continue with the issue.

24. The Applicant seeks disclosure of any lease of property relating to the development to which the second Respondent is a party, extending this to two other companies that are not a Party to this case (paragraph 7 (d) of the document of 25 November 2020). The Respondents' submit that the Applicant has failed to state why this is needed. The Tribunal has grave doubts as to whether there could ever be good reason to require a third party to disclose such information. The Tribunal will make no order as to disclosure at this stage, but is prepared to hear submissions as a preliminary point at the final hearing if the Applicant seeks to continue with the issue.

172

25. The Applicant seeks disclosure of details of individual lessees who have been promised membership or shareholding with the first Respondent (paragraph 7 (e) of the document of 25 November 2020). The Respondents' submit that the Applicant has failed to state why this is needed. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondents' and can see no conceivable way in which this could assist the Tribunal in deciding what is a service charge that can be charged under the terms of the lease and whether or not such a charge is demanded at a reasonable level. This part of the application for disclosure is refused.

26. The Applicant seeks disclosure of details of instructions/ work completed/ drafted by [NAME_33] (paragraph 7 (f) of the document of 25 November 2020). The Respondents' submit that the Applicant has not made it clear as to how such information could assist the Tribunal in deciding the issues in this case. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondents' and can see no conceivable way in which this could assist the Tribunal in deciding what is a service charge that can be charged under the terms of the lease and whether or not such a charge is demanded at a reasonable level. This part of the application for disclosure is refused.

27. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant contends that it would be unfair to continue with the Tribunal's plan to deal with this case as a hybrid hearing sitting at Manchester. The Tribunal does not agree with the Applicant. This case has been pending for a very long time and it is in everyone's best interest that this case be finalised as soon as possible. The Tribunal will continue to list this case for a hearing in the tribunal hearing room in Manchester.

FURTHER DIRECTIONS

1. The tribunal office will copy to the Respondents' solicitor, [NAME_69] and (if so required by those solicitors) to the offices of the Respondent companies the email that the Tribunal has received from the Applicant, entitled "Re Response to Tribunal Directions of 7 December 2020 and email dated 10 December 2020", together with attachments. This to be sent by email as soon as is reasonably practicable and the Tribunal will record the date that this is done.

2. The Parties and the Applicant in particular are hereby required to obey [NAME_286] of the Directions issued by [NAME_26], on 6 July 2018, that "No documents, letters or emails may be sent to the Tribunal unless also sent to the other Party to these proceedings. Confirmation that this has been done must clearly be marked on all correspondence." To ensure that this is complied with the Parties must take note that if that Direction is not complied with this Tribunal will not

173

deal with the documents, letters or email that has been sent in breach of the Direction.

3. The Applicant has requested disclosure of bank accounts, see paragraphs 19 and 20 above. The Tribunal is led to believe that both Parties are fully aware of the bank statements involved, if that is not the case the Respondents must ask for clarification from the Applicant by 4pm, 8 January 2021. If such a request is made, the Applicant must respond, making it clear which bank statements are at issue, to the Respondents' solicitors by 4pm, 15 January 2021. All such communication may be by email.

4. The Parties must supply dates to avoid for the months of February, March and April 2021, together with a list of persons who have already given witness statements in these proceedings and whom they wish to cross examine (challenge parts of those witness statements) at the hearing by 4pm, 8 January 2021. This may be done by email to the tribunal office.

5. Any Party wishing to object to these Directions must do so in writing, by email to the tribunal office, within 7 days of the Directions being sent to them by email. Such objection may be by email and must contain reasons for the objection.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TRIBUNAL’S DIRECTIONS MAY RESULT IN DETRIMENT TO A PARTIES CASE. FOR EXAMPLE, IT MAY LEAD TO THE TRIBUNAL REFUSING TO HEAR LATE EVIDENCE; TO A PARTIES CASE BEING STRUCK OUT; AND/OR TO AN ORDER FOR COSTS BEING MADE.

Judge Tonge

Sent to the Parties via email on ...