First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Fairness

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case references : CAM/34UD/LSC/2024/0012 Property : Flats 19-24 Palace Gate, Irthlingborough, Wellingborough [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] Applicant’s Representative : Mr [COUNSEL] Respondent: [redacted] Respondent’s Representative : Mr [COUNSEL] of Counsel Type of application : Application for determination of liability to pay service charge pursuant to s. 27A Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Mr [APPELLANT] & Dr [NAME] : CVP Date of Decision : 19th August 2025

DECISION

1. The application 1.1. The Applicants are the [NAME] of Flats 19-24 Palace Gate, Irthlingborough, Wellingborough [POSTCODE]. Those premises form part of an estate which comprises three blocks, one comprising 4 units, one comprising 6 units (which is the Applicants’ block) and one comprising

2

8 units, i.e. 18 units in total. The service charge account is also divided into what are described as Service Charges and Estate Service Charges. We were informed that there are an additional 6 units which are liable to pay the Estate Service Charge. 1.2. The Applicants’ challenges relate to the completed years of account ending March 2019 – March 2023 and for the prospective year of account to December 2023 at which point the Applicants’ application for the Right to Manage their block took effect.

2. Debarring of the Respondent 2.1. Before proceeding to consider the substantive matters in issue it is necessary first to address the preliminary matter which we dealt with at the outset of the hearing: the Respondent’s application for the bar upon its further participation in the proceedings automatically imposed by reason of its failure to comply with the order of Judge Wyatt dated 31st January 2025 which required it, by no later than 12th February 2025, to provide its Statement of Case and its supporting documents, including all relevant invoices relating to the disputed matters, amongst other things. 2.2. By his order dated 14th February 2025 Judge Wyatt refused the Respondent’s application for permission to appeal against his order dated 31st January 2025 but made it clear that that did not prevent the Respondent from applying to us to lift the bar. 2.3. Counsel for the Respondent, [NAME], attended before us to make an application for the bar to be lifted. Any such application must necessarily have been made pursuant to r. 9(5) & (6) of the Tribunal’s rules. The relevant provisions for these purposes are:

“(5) If the proceedings or case, or part of them, have been struck out under paragraph (1) or (3)(a), the applicant may apply for the proceedings or case, or part of it, to be reinstated.

3

(6) An application under paragraph (5) must be made in writing and received by the Tribunal within 28 days after the date on which the Tribunal sent notification of the striking out to that party.

(7) This rule applies to a respondent as it applies to an applicant except that—

(a) a reference to the striking out of the proceedings or case or part of them is to be read as a reference to the barring of the respondent from taking further part in the proceedings or part of them; and (b) a reference to an application for the reinstatement of proceedings or case or part of them which have been struck out is to be read as a reference to an application for the lifting of the bar on the respondent from taking further part in the proceedings, or part of them.

(8) If a respondent has been barred from taking further part in proceedings under this rule and that bar has not been lifted, the Tribunal need not consider any response or other submission made by that respondent, and may summarily determine any or all issues against that respondent.” (Emphasis added)

2.4. The Respondent had not made an application in writing and had filed no evidence in support of it. Mr [RESPONDENT] was accordingly reduced to contending that the Respondent’s failure to comply was not contumelious, it had made some efforts to comply, he said, and ought to be given further time to comply fully. The difficulty with those submissions, leaving aside the failure of the Respondent (which is a professional landlord with substantial holdings and access to the assistance of expert legal advice and can accordingly be expected to be familiar with the Tribunal’s rules of procedure) to comply with the mandatory requirements of r. 9(6), was that the Respondent had utterly failed to provide any form of explanation for its failure to comply with the order of 31st January 2025.

Accordingly, even assuming that it would be appropriate for us to waive the failure of the Respondent to comply with the mandatory requirements of r. 9(6) applying the requirement of the Overriding Objective to facilitate participation in the proceedings

4

and not to take an unduly formal approach to compliance with the rules of procedure, we do not consider that it would be appropriate to lift the bar. There is simply no excuse, let alone a good reason, for the Respondent’s failure to comply with the order of 31st January 2025. Its excuse for its failure to comply with the original directions order was poor enough but the failure comply with the unless order is simply unexplained and seemed to us to be wholly unjustified. For that reason we rejected the Respondent’s application and Mr [RESPONDENT] accordingly took no further part in the proceedings. 2.5. We considered whether we should consequently determine the disputed matter summarily in favour of the Applicant but decided against doing so on the basis that it would be preferable for the parties to have a reasoned decision particularly as regards the apportionment questions which represented the main burden of the Applicants’ challenges.

3. The leases 3.1. The sample lease with which we were provided stated very simply that the [NAME] should each pay, “a fair proportion,” of the service charge.

4. Apportionment 4.1. As we have said, the key area of disagreement between the parties is as to the apportionment of the costs between the 18 units which comprise the estate. Save in respect of costs which could be attributed specifically to a particular unit or block, costs which are properly to be spread across the estate have been apportioned by the Respondent equally between the three blocks. It is the Applicants’ position that those costs should instead be divided equally between the individual units, i.e. by 18. 4.2. The approach which should be adopted by the Tribunal to disputes of that sort has recently been the subject of significant decisions by the Supreme Court and the Upper Tribunal namely: Aviva Investors Ground

5

Rent GP [COMPANY] v Williams [2023] UKSC 6 and [COMPANY] v Eames [2023] UKUT 168 (LC). 4.3. According to Hawk the first question for us is whether the apportionments which have been made by the Respondent are in accordance with the terms of the lease. In this case, that means the first question is whether the proportions are ‘fair’. 4.4. Insofar as the question whether the proportions are fair can meaningfully be distinguished from the question whether they are reasonable we must then also consider that question. 4.5. It is our view, in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, that the Applicants’ criticisms of the Respondent’s apportionment of the general costs in three between the blocks is obviously unfair. There is no apparent reason why the [NAME] of the 4 unit, two storey, block should pay the same amount as the [NAME] of the 8 unit, three storey, block, i.e. twice as much for the same services. The same logic applies to the estate service charges although there are 24 units which benefit from the estate services. 4.6. It is therefore our conclusion that, save as regards costs which are specifically attributable to a particular block or unit, the service charge costs should be apportioned equally between the 18 units. Likewise, the estate service charge should be apportioned equally between the 24 units.

5. Burden of proof 5.1. This question assumes particular significance in the absence of the Respondent. The basic principle is that he who asserts must prove. Thus, insofar as the Applicant’s claim that the Respondent’s apportionment of the costs was not in accordance with the terms of the lease, i.e. that it was not fair, they must prove that. 5.2. However, it is the effect of s. 19 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 that service charges will only be payable if they were:

6

5.2.1. Reasonably incurred; and 5.2.2. Were carried out to a reasonable standard.

The onus is therefore upon the Respondent to prove reasonableness insofar as that question arises either in relation to specific items of expenditure or in relation to apportionment. However, it seems to us that for practical purposes, if service charges are fair, then they are also reasonable.

Accordingly, we are required to determine whether on the balance of probabilities the apportionments are fair and in the case of any specific challenges they were incurred, were payable in principle and whether they were reasonable per s. 19.

6. Conclusions 6.1. We have reached general conclusions as regards the apportionment of the various costs which we have set out above. Where we consider that a particular item of expenditure should be apportioned to a specific block rather than per unit across the three blocks we have said so in the section provided for our comments in the Scott Schedule. Further conclusions as a matter of principle in relation to the disputed items identified in the Scott Schedule are set out in the column provided for our comments. These two sets of conclusions are to be read together. 6.2. It will be for the parties to make and we hope agree upon the necessary calculations.

7

APPENDIX 1- RIGHTS OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

Case Reference: CAM/34UD/LSC/2024/0012 Premises: Flats 19-24 Palace Gate, Irthlingborough, Wellingborough [POSTCODE]

March 2018 - March 2019 - All Blocks Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) Insurance March 2018/2019 + Brokers fee £ 4,200.61 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe incorrect insurance was taken out, which does not correlate with the policy documentation provided as per disclosure.

If the insurance policy is valid, an alternative quote has also been obtained to highlight the unreasonable cost.

The Applicants sought to persuade us that there were reasons to believe from the limited documentation which was available that there were good reasons to believe that no policy had been taken out or that it had not been ‘validly’ taken out. The basis for that claim seemed to be that documents relating to different years of account had the same policy number. The true basis of the Applicants’ challenge appeared to be that there was in fact no policy and that the documents had been fabricated, although Mr [NAME] disavowed such a claim when it was put to him directly.

In our view the documents which were available including the policy schedule and a demand for the payment of a policy excess suggest to us that there was indeed a policy in place which had paid out on a claim.

In the absence of any clear evidence that the premium was not reasonable it is our view using in particular our professional expertise and experience that the annual premiums seem to be reasonably well aligned and to accord with premiums for comparable properties. It is well known that [NAME] premiums are quite volatile and that

explains the apparently significant deviations from the mean across the six years.

We note, for the record, that copy of the insurance policy at p.198 of the bundle describes the premises as a ‘purpose built block of 18 flats’. That is inaccurate, the premises comprise three purpose built low rise blocks. Although we recognise that that misdescription could have had an impact on the premium payable, there was no evidence before us that that was the case. Common parts electricity £ 560.39 ALTERATION Calculation of the electricity has been averaged from all flats, spread across 3 blocks. All invoices have been based upon estimated readings, hence correct figures have not been provided. Calculation to follow.

Each block is separately metered, there is therefore no reason why these costs should not be apportioned specifically between the blocks. That seems to us to be fair. It is not clear whether that is what has been done.

There is also no reason why those meters should not have been read at any point during the period, iif only by the managing agent so that an accurate reading could be reported to the supplier. However, because the majority of the readings are estimates, the true state of the account takes a considerable period to be resolved.

We were also informed that the Applicants/their [COMPANY] had had to pay the sum of £600.00 in order to clear the account with [NAME]. That sum was a late payment charge imposed as a result of the Respondent’s failure to make any payments on the account since

June 2023. In our view that is a sum which ought properly to be refunded either to the Applicants or their [COMPANY] in order to reconcile their service charge accounts. Common parts cleaning £ 1,512.00 NOT DISPUTING

Common parts Window cleaning £ 1,404.00 UNREASONABLE The previous contractor provided services for much less. Double charged with two service providers.

These costs were not reasonably incurred. There was no need for monthly visits. Bi-monthly visits at £192.00 per visit is the amount of visits and the cost which would have been reasonably incurred.

These costs should also be apportioned equally between the units. Rubbish removal £ 792.00 NOT PAYABLE Not necessary, and no further information provided.

Not disputed Clear Plastic from sewage £ 330.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is unreasonable considering the scope of work.

Not disputed Door replacement etc as per section 20 notices £ 10,033.07 NOT PAYABLE Leaseholders have not received a section 20 notice

There is no evidence that any section 20 notice was served or that the works were in fact done. Not payable. Gutter Replacement £ 108.00 NOT DISPUTING

Emergency lighting testing £ 433.65 NOT DISPUTING

Remedial works to smoke detectors £ 178.20 NOT DISPUTING

Lights replacement £ 120.00 NOT DISPUTING

Aerial works £ 954.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is unreasonable considering the scope of work.

Not disputed

Light repairs £ 204.00 NOT DISPUTING

Drainage cleaning £ 731.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is unreasonable considering the scope of work. Alternative quotes obtained

The Applicants’ alternative quote of £336.00 is the amount which it was reasonable for the Respondent to have incurred. Smoke detector fault repair £ 166.80 UNREASONABLE Cost is unreasonable considering the scope of work.

Not disputed Accountant £ 660.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is unreasonable considering the scope of work.

The Applicants claim that the [NAME] charge of £660.00 is sufficient to cover the whole of the reasonable charges given the limited scope of the work undertaken, i.e. the further charge of £144.00 which has been included in the Estate Service Charge account was not reasonably incurred

We do not agree. A total charge of £804.00 for the certification of these service charge accounts does not strike us as being unreasonable. It is a cost incurred for the benefit of the [NAME] and is recoverable under the lease although the lease does not specifically require the end of year accounts to be certified by an accountant. Management fee March 2018/2019 £ 4,968.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

Using our professional expertise, we are of the view that the appropriate management fee for these blocks, given the level of service provided, is £225.00 per unit, i.e. £4,050.00. Please see also our comments below in relation to the additional management charge made in respect of the estate.

Total expenditure £ 27,355.72

Case Reference: CAM/34UD/LSC/2024/0012 Premises: 19-24 Flats 19-24 Palace Gate, Irthlingborough, Wellingborough [POSTCODE]

March 2018 - March 2019 - Estate Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) [NAME] £ 468.00 NOT [NAME] £ 252.00 NOT [NAME] £ 144.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

Payable. See above. Estate Management fee £ 1,329.60 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

Given the relatively small proportion of the management effort attributable to the estate as opposed to the blocks, we consider, using our professional expertise and having regard to the level of service provided, that an additional management charge of £50.00 per unit p.a. is reasonably payable i.e. £1,200.00 in total. Total £ 2,193.60

March 2019 - March 2020 - All Blocks Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) Insurance March 2019/2020 + Brokers fee £ 4,712.00 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe incorrect insurance was taken out, which does not correlate with the policy documentation provided as per disclosure.

See above Common parts electricity £ 625.99 ALTERATION Calculation of the electricity has been averaged from all flats, spread across 3 blocks. All invoices have been based upon estimated readings, hence correct figures have not been provided. Calculation to follow.

See above Common parts cleaning £ 1,152.00 NOT DISPUTING

Common parts Window cleaning £ 648.00 NOT [NAME] for insurance purposes £ 2,040.00 UNREASONABLE for scope of works. Alternative quote provided.

Not disputed Rubbish removal £ 120.00 NOT DISPUTING

Bush Cutting £ 120.00 NOT PAYABLE Should be included in [NAME] in Estate Charges

This is an estate service charge cost and should be apportioned between the 24 units responsible for the estate service charge.

[NAME] equipment service £ 3,062.48 UNREASONABLE Cost unreasonable considering size of block / repairs required

Not disputed [NAME] £ 498.01 NOT PAYABLE - Only required a full report every 4 years and a review every 2 years, as per the gov website. Last full review was 2017.

Not disputed Investigate Door issues £ 273.60 NOT DISPUTING

Drainage CCTV and cleaning £ 1,173.00 UNREASONABLE

The cost reasonably incurred, as per the Applicants’ estimate, is £336.00 Accountant £ 690.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

Payable see above. Management fee March 2019/2020 £ 5,011.20 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above, £225.00 per unit. Total expenditure £ 20,126.28

March 2019 - March 2020 - Estate Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) [NAME] 2019/2020 £ 764.00 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe insurance taken out was invalid, as it is not usual practice to apply a declared value on the estate, which comprises a car park and some patches of greenery.

See above [NAME] £ 180.00 NOT [NAME] £ 252.00 NOT [NAME] £ 156.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

Payable see above. Estate Management fee £ 1,358.40 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above, £50.00 per unit. Total £ 2,710.40

March 2020 - March 2021 - All Blocks Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) Insurance March 2020/2021 + Brokers fee £ 6,084.00 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe incorrect insurance was taken out, which does not correlate with the policy documentation provided as per disclosure.

See above. Common parts electricity £ 630.71 ALTERATION Calculation of the electricity has been averaged from all flats, spread across 3 blocks. All invoices have been based upon estimated readings, hence correct figures have not been provided. Calculation to follow.

See above. Common parts cleaning £ 648.00 NOT DISPUTING

Common parts Window cleaning £ 648.00 NOT [NAME] £ 522.00 NOT PAYABLE - Only required a full report every 4 years and a review every 2 years, as per the gov website. Last full review was 2017.

Not reasonably incurred. A full report is only required once every four years. The previous full assessment was done in 2017.

[NAME] service £ 216.82 NOT DISPUTING

Re-energisation of landlords main supply £ 270.00 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the scope of works

Not disputed.

Installation of fireboard to ceiling void of electric cupboard £ 1,003.30 UNREASONABLE - Given the follow up works required - this did not meet fire standards

Not disputed Removal of Furniture & tidying £ 180.00 NOT DISPUTING

Accountant £ 720.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

See above. Management fee March 2020/2021 £ 5,076.00 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above, £225.00 per unit. Total expenditure £ 15,998.83

March 2020 - March 2021 - Estate Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) [NAME] 2020/2021 £ 549.80 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe insurance taken out was invalid, as it is not usual practice to apply a declared value on the estate, which comprises a car park and some patches of greenery.

See above [NAME] £ 108.00 NOT [NAME] £ 252.00 NOT DISPUTING

6-monthly Drains Service £ 1,224.00 UNREASONABLE - Unreasonable for scope of works. Alternative quotes found.

Not reasonably incurred. There is no reason for a 6 monthly drain survey in the absence of any apparent problem. [NAME] risk assessment £ 234.00 NOT PAYABLE - No need for a fire risk assessment in the external parts

Not disputed. Excavation of collapsed drains £ 1,530.00 UNREASONABLE - Unreasonable for scope of works.

No works done. Drains CCTV Investigation £ 408.00 UNREASONABLE - Unreasonable for scope of works. Alternative quotes found.

As above £336.00 as per the Applicants’ estimate. [NAME] £ 174.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

As above Estate Management fee £ 1,416.00 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above, £50.00 per unit.

Total £ 5,895.80

March 2021 - March 2022 - All Blocks Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) Insurance March 2021/2022 + Brokers fee £ 3,468.34 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe incorrect insurance was taken out, which does not correlate with the policy documentation provided as per disclosure.

As above. Common parts electricity £ 501.64 ALTERATION Calculation of the electricity has been averaged from all flats, spread across 3 blocks. All invoices have been based upon estimated readings, hence correct figures have not been provided. Calculation to follow.

As above. Common parts cleaning & carpet cleaning £ 2,568.00 UNREASONABLE Compared to the other years in dispute.

Not disputed. Common parts Window cleaning £ 1,404.00 UNREASONABLE Compared to the other years in dispute.

As above. [NAME] testing, services & repairs £ 869.24 NOT [NAME] £ 212.74 NOT PAYABLE Attributed to [NAME] 21. Should be recovered from [NAME]

Not payable. There is no communal water supply. It is believed this charge relates specifically to the

[NAME]. Fire Door Inspections £ 873.52 UNREASONABLE - Cost Excessive for works provided. Alternate quotes available.

The charge reasonably incurred is £302.30. EICR Report & Remedial Works £ 1,893.29 UNREASONABLE - Cost Excessive for works provided.

Not disputed Meter Cupboard Works £ 3,600.00 NOT PAYABLE - Works completed in Block A.

Works wrongly attributed to Applicants’ block, the works were done in Block A. Not payable. Call out with scaffold tower to replace roof tiles £ 1,500.00 UNREASONABLE - Not enough information provided. Not known if relevant to Block C

Not disputed. Replacement of lights £ 342.00 UNREASONABLE - Not enough information provided. Not known if relevant to Block C or howm any lights replaced.

Not disputed. [NAME] £ 1,182.00 Scope of work is unreasonably excessive, in addition to the charges themselves. Some of the invoices are reasonable, some are not - detailed list to be provided.

Not disputed. [NAME] £ 522.00 NOT DISPUTED (once every 4 years)

Not disputed. Accountant £ 750.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

As above. Management fee March 2021/2022 £ 5,119.20 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above, £225.00 per unit. Total expenditure £ 24,805.97

March 2021 - March 2022 - Estate Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) [NAME] 2020/2021 £ 578.29 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe insurance taken out was invalid, as it is not usual practice to apply a declared value on the estate, which comprises a car park and some patches of greenery.

As above. [NAME] £ 828.00 UNREASONABLE Compared to the other years in dispute.

The charge reasonably incurred is £360.00 twice annually. Monthly Bin Cleaning £ 523.20 UNREASONABLE Compared to the other years in dispute. 1 Bin cleaning a year only is reasonable

This seems to us to be a charge reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. [NAME] £ 252.00 NOT [NAME] to prepare pre planned maintenance schedule £ 1,320.00 UNREASONABLE - Cost excessive for scope of work. Alternate quote available

Not reasonably incurred. Not payable. Removal of waste & bushes and treating of area £ 594.00 UNREASONABLE - Cost excessive for scope of work. Alternate quote available

Not reasonably incurred. Not payable. Drains Service £ 1,023.00 UNREASONABLE - Cost excessive for scope of work. Alternate quote available

£336 based on the Applicants’ alternative quote for the works. Manhole cover & frame replacement £ 870.00 UNREASONABLE - Cost excessive for scope of work.

Not disputed External Lighting call out & repair to fuse £ 456.00 UNREASONABLE - Cost excessive for scope of work.

Not disputed

[NAME] £ 234.00 NOT PAYABLE - No need for a fire risk assessment in the external parts

Not reasonably incurred. Previous years’ assessments sufficient. [NAME] £ 204.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

As before. Estate Management fee March 2021/2022 £ 1,473.60 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above £50.00 per unit. Total £ 8,356.09

March 2022 - March 2023 - All Blocks Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) Insurance March 2022/2023 + Brokers fee £ 6,897.40 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe incorrect insurance was taken out, which does not correlate with the policy documentation provided as per disclosure.

As before. Common parts electricity £ 974.94 ALTERATION Calculation of the electricity has been averaged from all flats, spread across 3 blocks. All invoices have been based upon estimated readings, hence correct figures have not been provided. Calculation to follow.

As before. Common parts cleaning & carpet cleaning £ 1,404.00 NOT DISPUTING

Common parts Window cleaning £ 1,386.00 UNREASONABLE The previous contractor provided services for much less. Double charged with two service providers.

As before. [NAME] testing, services and repairs £ 2,553.70 UNREASONABLE Scope of work is unreasonably excessive, in addition to the charges themselves. Some of the invoices are reasonable, some are not - detailed list to be provided.

Not disputed

[NAME] £ 340.94 NOT PAYABLE Attributed to [NAME] 21. Should be recovered from [NAME] by [NAME] 21. There is no communal water. Gutter Cleaning £ 1,320.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is unreasonable per trip for the two visits made by [COMPANY].

Not disputed. [NAME] for Insurance purposes £ 1,020.00 NOT PAYABLE No report provided, no evidence of works carried out, cost wildly disproportionate to the alleged works.

There is no evidence of any report having been prepared. Not payable. LED lights installation £ 2,256.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is unreasonable considering the scope of work.

Not disputed Electric equipment service £ 180.00 NOT DISPUTING

Electrical fault finding, light bulbs replaced etc £ 433.68 UNREASONABLE Cost is wholly unreasonable for the works carried out. Changed 3 bulbs and 1 bulkhead light.

Payable. Reasonably incurred but the costs are excessive. Doing the best we can using our professional expertise, we assess the value of the works at £250.00 plus VAT. Tanker to remove debris & Gutters £ 3,822.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is excessive, as materials used are disproportionate to the scope of works.

The proper cost for these works for the reasons given by the Applicants at p. 181 of the bundle is £2,349.00. Microwave sensors installement £ 778.80 NOT PAYABLE Not required, and charges also disproportionate to the scope of work.

Not disputed. Replace LED round bulkhead £ 546.00 NOT PAYABLE Work not done to correct property. Works related to adjacent property and no description of works.

Not disputed. Replace overheated power supplies £ 1,296.00 NOT PAYABLE Works not carried out at the correct property. Scope of work not listed with proper description.

Not disputed.

Emergency light replacement £ 282.00 NOT PAYABLE No reference to what works were required, nor where this works were carried out.

Not disputed. Stair nosing secured £ 192.00 UNREASONABLE Excessive cost considering the works carried out.

Not disputed. Fuse board fire rated enclosure, etc £ 5,622.00 NOT PAYABLE Not fit for standard, as wooden enclosure not suitable for fire safety.

Not disputed. Lock repair £ 222.00 NOT DISPUTING

Not disputed. Visual Installation Condition report £ 896.40 NOT PAYABLE Work not necessary, as should be covered by a EICR report every 5 or 10 years.

Not disputed. Fuse replacement due to creating short circuit £ 720.38 NOT PAYABLE Requirement for work not satisfied, photos not provided.

Costs not attributable to this block. In order to be fair they should be apportioned entirely to [NAME]. RCD replacement, upgrade fluorescent lighting, Surge Protective installation e £ 3,039.36 UNREASONABLE Works either not required, or not relevant to subject building.

Only £1,869.00 of this cost is referrable to works done at the Applicants’ block. A fair apportionment requires the costs specifically attributable to specific blocks should be apportioned as such. Wooden door works as per requirement for fire £ 1,200.00 NOT PAYABLE Duplicate works which were not required initially. Company not competent to carry out such works.

Not disputed. Roof Drone Survey £ 300.00 NOT PAYABLE No requirement for works, company also not competent to carry out such works. No evidence provided to support the Respondent’s invoice.

Not reasonably incurred. There was no apparent need for this survey and no report has been produced.

Extractor replacement £ 249.59 UNREASONABLE Material cost is reasonable, labour cost is unreasonable.

This cost relates exclusively to [NAME]. A fair apportionment requires that the [NAME] of the units in that block bear this cost. Accountant £ 780.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

As above. Management fee March 2022/2023 £ 5,162.40 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above, however, it is reasonable to include an increase for inflation for this year to £250.00 per unit. Total expenditure £ 43,875.59

March 2022 - March 2023 - Estate Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) [NAME] 2021/2022 + BF £ 1,094.15 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe insurance taken out was invalid, as it is not usual practice to apply a declared value on the estate, which comprises a car park and some patches of greenery.

As above. [NAME] £ 1,572.00 UNREASONABLE Cost excessive considering work required.

The charge reasonably incurred is £360.00 twice annually Monthly Bin Cleaning £ 366.24 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Charged in 2021 already, following visits not required. One visit is reasonable.

As above. Payable. [NAME] £ 252.00 NOT DISPUTING

Drains Service £ 804.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is excessive, as materials used are disproportionate to the scope of works.

Based on the Applicants’ information, the reasonable charge is £336.00 p.a. Waste Removal £ 552.00 UNREASONABLE No certificate provided for responsible waste removal, excessive for works.

This work was undertaken by a London based company [NAME]. That was unreasonable Downpipes cleaning and repair £ 3,420.00 UNREASONABLE Excessive cost considering works carried out.

Moss and Vegetation removal £ 3,540.00 UNREASONABLE Excessive cost considering works carried out.

The charge made by the [COMPANY]’s contractor for the same work was £1,980.00 that is the

amount reasonably incurred. Damaged fence replacement and removal £ 1,290.00 NOT [NAME] £ 240.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

As above Estate Management fee March 2022/2023 £ 1,531.20 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

This charge is reasonable making allowance for inflation. Total £ 14,661.59

March 2023 - March 2024 - All Blocks Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) Insurance March 2023/2024 + Brokers fee £7,994.70 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe incorrect insurance was taken out, which does not correlate with the policy documentation provided as per disclosure.

As above Common parts electricity £2,245.74 ALTERATION Calculation of the electricity has been averaged from all flats, spread across 3 blocks. All invoices have been based upon estimated readings, hence correct figures have not been provided. Calculation to follow.

As above Common parts cleaning & carpet cleaning £1,712.00 NOT DISPUTING

Common parts Window cleaning £1,848.00 UNREASONABLE Compared to the other years in dispute. Double charging

As above [NAME] testing, services & repairs £2,536.20 UNREASONABLE Excessive cost considering works carried out.

On the Applicants’ evidence, no full test was carried out in this year, it is therefore unclear to what this charge relates. Not payable. BNO - Mains Power , isolator etc - [NAME] £2,301.17 NOT PAYABLE - Not relevant to Block C

BNO is not a qualified electrical provider. It was not therefore reasonable to retain it to carry out

these works. Not reasonably incurred. Not payable. Also these costs should be apportioned according to the block to which they relate and these costs do not relate to the Applicants’ block. BNO - Mains Power , isolator etc - [NAME] £3,423.04 NOT PAYABLE - Not relevant to Block C

BNO is not a qualified electrical provider. It was not therefore reasonable to retain it to carry out these works. Not reasonably incurred. Not payable. Also these costs should be apportioned according to the block to which they relate and these costs do not relate to the Applicants’ block. BNO - Mains Power , isolator etc - [NAME] £2,908.24 NOT PAYABLE - BNO not qualified to carry out these works and not required.

BNO is not a qualified electrical provider. It was not therefore reasonable to retain it to carry out these works. Not reasonably incurred. Not payable. BNO - Mains Power , isolator etc - Lucas Room £948.23 NOT PAYABLE - Not relevant to Block C

BNO is not a qualified electrical provider. It was not therefore reasonable to retain it to carry out these works. Not reasonably incurred. Not payable.

Also these costs should be apportioned by 24 as they are estate costs. Electric Cupboard works £600.00 NOT PAYABLE - Not relevant to Block C. No photos or evidence.

Not disputed. Insurance claim excess £250.00 NOT PAYABLE No information of what this relates to. No claim funds reached service charge account. Excess paid to company who are not the insurance company.

No sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this sum is payable. Not Payable.

Key Cutting £93.96 NOT DISPUTING

Not disputed. Gutter repair, Hopper unblocking etc £2,940.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is excessive, as materials used are disproportionate to the scope of works. Company no longer exist.

The Applicants’ evidence was that this cost did not relation to their block. This is a block specific cost which should in fairness should be apportioned as such. [NAME] £1,140.00 UNREASONABLE Cost is excessive for scope of works. No proof of works.

The Applicants’ evidence was that this cost did not relation to their block. This is a block specific cost which should in fairness should be apportioned as such. [NAME] fill £2,784.00 NOT PAYABLE - No Invoice provided

[NAME] , repair and Visual installation £913.20 NOT PAYABLE - Not relevant to Block C

The Applicants’ evidence was that this cost did not relation to their block. This is a block specific cost which should in fairness should be apportioned as such. [NAME] [NAME] , repair and Visual installation £1,216.56 NOT PAYABLE - Not relevant to Block C

The Applicants’ evidence was that this cost did not relation to their block. This is a block specific cost which should in fairness should be apportioned as such. [NAME] , repair and Visual installation £1,156.80 UNREASONABLE - Cost excessive for scope of works. Not required.

Not disputed UPVC Cleaning, Silicone joints etc £2,640.00 NOT PAYABLE - After RTM handover date.

Works done after the RTM handover and were not therefore the Respondent’s responsibility, Not payable. [NAME] , Facia board etc works £2,160.00 NOT PAYABLE - After RTM handover date.

Works done after the RTM handover and were not therefore the Respondent’s responsibility, Not payable.

Downpipes cleaning and repair £2,184.00 NOT PAYABLE - No proof of works with invoice.

Works done after the RTM handover and were not therefore the Respondent’s responsibility, Not payable. Rear Gutters Cleaning £1,392.00 50% NOT PAYABLE - After RTM handover date. 50% - Unreasonable - Cost excessive.

Works done after the RTM handover and were not therefore the Respondent’s responsibility, Not payable. Communal Area paint touch up £1,950.00 NOT PAYABLE - After RTM handover date.

Works done after the RTM handover and were not therefore the Respondent’s responsibility, Not payable. Roof works £3,960.00 NOT PAYABLE - After RTM handover date.

Works done after the RTM handover and were not therefore the Respondent’s responsibility, Not payable. Accountant £810.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

As above Management fee March 2023/2024 £5,292.00 UNREASONABLE Does not reflect the level of service received.

See above, however, it is reasonable to include an increase for inflation for this year to £250.00 per unit. Total £57,399.84

March 2023 - March 2024 - Estate Service Charges

Item Cost Tenant’s Comments Respondent’s Comments Leave Blank (for the Tribunal) [NAME] 2023/2024 + BF £1,261.47 NOT PAYABLE / UNREASONABLE Reason to believe insurance taken out was invalid, as it is not usual practice to apply a declared value on the estate, which comprises a car park and some patches of greenery.

As before. [NAME] £1,416.00 UNREASONABLE Cost excessive considering work required & cost in previous years

£1,080.00 is the amount reasonably incurred for the reasons explained by the Applicants at p. 179 of the bundle. [NAME] £252.00 NOT DISPUTING

Drains Service £7,266.00 UNREASONABLE Cost excessive considering work required. Alternate quotes available

These costs were not reasonably incurred. There appears to have been substantial duplication of effort. For the reasons given by the Applicants at pp. 179-181 of the bundle the sum reasonably incurred is £2,349.00. Removal of Moss, Vegetations etc from Passway £1,980.00 UNREASONABLE Cost excessive considering work required. Alternate quotes available

Not reasonably incurred, this work should have been included within the [NAME] charge. [NAME] £216.00 NOT PAYABLE - No evidence of works

The Applicants’ evidence is that this work was not done. Not payable. [NAME] £270.00 UNREASONABLE Unreasonable cost for works carried out for [NAME], in conjunction with the [NAME].

As above. Estate Management fee March £1,617.60 UNREASONABLE

This charge is reasonable making

2023/2024 Does not reflect the level of service received. allowance for inflation. Total £14,279.07