First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charge Reasonableness and Cost Recovery

OUTCOME: Allowed

1

Case Reference: BIR/00CS/LIS/2018/0011

Property:

Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Applicants: [redacted] [NAME_10] instructed by [COMPANY_103]

Respondent: [redacted] [NAME_16], Direct Access Counsel.

Type of Application: Application for a determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges pursuant to s27A Landlord & Tenant Act 1985; and an application that the Applicant is prevented from recovering its costs pursuant to s20C of the Act of 1985.

Date & Venue of Hearing: 8 August 2018. The Tribunal reconvened on 2 further occasions, namely 15 October and 23 November 2018

Tribunal Members: Judge A [NAME_18]

Date of Decision: 24 January 2019

_______________________________________________________

DECISION _______________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

FIRST - TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

2 Introduction 1. This is an application for a determination of liability to pay and/or the reasonableness of service charges sought by the Applicant in relation to Flat 14, [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE].

2. In addition the Respondent seeks an order that the Applicant should be prevented from seeking to recover the costs of this application via the service charge.

3. In its application dated 23 February 2018, the Applicant invited the Tribunal to consider the service charges for the periods 2009-10 to 2017 inclusive. The total amount in dispute was said to be £29,958.76 (this is the figure from the application and appears to apply to flats 9/10/14/24 in total)

4. This case is to be treated as a sample application since there are other applications relating to Flats 9, 10 and 24 [NAME_1] which have been stayed pending this decision.

5. The case was heard on 8 August 2018: the Tribunal heard from Counsel and, given the volume of information provided, the Tribunal reconvened on a further two subsequent occasions, on 15 October and 23 November 2018, to consider the material. In particular three volumes consisting principally of invoices. The Lease 6. A lease for a term of 99 years was created between the parties’ predecessors in title on 25 March 1974 and appeared at pages 11 to 33 of the hearing bundle.

7. For the purposes of this decision, the relevant provisions of the lease are as follows: (1)… (iv) “The said development” shall mean [NAME_20]’s development at [NAME_1]…which includes the Mansion as hereinafter described…

3 (vi) “The Mansion” shall mean the property described in the First Schedule hereto… (viii) “The Flat” means the property hereby demised and described in the Second Schedule hereto. (ix) “[NAME_20]’s Expenses” means money actually expended and reserved for periodical expenditure by or on behalf of [NAME_20] during the term…in carrying out in respect of the Mansion the obligations specified in the Sixth Schedule hereto for the period ending on the Thirtieth day of June 1977 and for each and every subsequent year ending on the thirtieth day of June.

8. After dealing with the purchase [NAME_15] and ground rent, the document continued as follows: 1… AND ALSO YIELDING AND PAYING during the said term:- …(ii) The Lessee’s proportion of [NAME_20]’s Expenses on the days and in manner…provided… (iii) Such other sum or sums in respect of the Flat which [NAME_20] from time to time during the said term properly shall be called upon to pay… 9. The Mansion was defined in the First schedule as follows: ALL THAT land at [NAME_1], Tipton

TOGETHER with the building flats garages driveways pathways gardens and grounds…shown for the purpose of identification only on the plan and…edged in green 10. The Flat was defined in the Second Schedule (not set out here). 11. Part II of the Second Schedule set out the Covenants by Lessee with [NAME_21] and provided, amongst other things, as follows:

4 2. (i) To contribute and pay one equal 1/8th part of the costs expenses outgoings and matters mentioned in the First Part of the Eighth Schedule [EXPENSES OF THE BUILDING] and one equal 1/31st part of those mentioned in the Second Part of the Eighth Schedule [EXPENSES OF THE MANSION] together with Value Added Tax.

12. The succeeding subparagraphs identify that the service charge would be estimated by [NAME_20] by the service charge year end, that year ending on 30 June (iii); that the Lessee would pay in two instalments on 1 January and 1 July; and that a balancing payment was due every third year subject to any credit held by [NAME_20] (iv). The Respondent’s case 13. It is the Respondent’s case that: a. The service charge demands do not comply with the lease b. Elements of the charges are invalid as the Respondent is not liable under the lease c. ‘Many’ are unreasonable d. That the Applicants are not entitled to recover costs by way of service charge e. Alternatively section 20C applies.

14. Those bullet points were fleshed out by [NAME_22] in §13 of his Skeleton argument and orally and were encapsulated in §s 14 to 16 of the Skeleton: a. The Applicants failed until the end of 2017 to comply with the requirements of the lease in respect of the obligation to serve estimates of expenditure; b. The basis of the calculation is unclear: for example the increase in proportion from 1/31st to 1/24th and more recently 1/20th; and

5 c. There is no evidence that the certified statements of income and expenditure served upon the Respondent within 18 months of that expenditure being incurred; and, even if they were to be so interpreted, there is no statement to the effect that the Respondent would be required to contribute. It is said that they are defective notices under s20B(2) of the Act of 1985.

15. Following the adjournment in part necessitated by the need for the production of further documents, [NAME_22] prepared further written submissions on behalf of the Respondent.

16. In its supplementary written submissions, the Applicant objected in part to those submissions and suggested that where they amounted to the introduction of new evidence they should be excluded.

17. Since the Tribunal gave to each party the opportunity to deal with the additional disclosure it would be illogical to ignore the Respondent’s submissions by way of response. To the extent that the Respondent sought to introduce additional material for the first time then the Tribunal will exclude it since there has to come a point at which the evidence is complete: it was not anticipated that any new material would be forthcoming.

18. In the Respondent’s supplementary submissions it appears that: a. The Respondent is now content that the ‘service charge budget calculations…correspond with the relevant service charge demands’. There is still an issue with the proportion sought. b. The fire and health and safety risk assessments are said to be carried out by a company virtually indistinguishable from the Applicant; c. The appearance of the assessments is said to be repetitive and in any event excessive;

6 d. The principle of the cost of installation of emergency lighting is no longer in issue but is presented in an anomalous way; e. Emergency lighting was not installed prior to August 2015 and so there should be no charge to the respondent prior to that time; f. The cost of lighting checks is unreasonable and ought to be dealt with as [NAME_23]; g. Management fees are unreasonable (the Tribunal will rely upon its own expertise in this respect since the information provided by both parties is far too late); and h. [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_1]. Again this is based upon the additional evidence purported to be introduced late and so the Tribunal will exclude it. In any event the Tribunal did not carry out a comparative exercise as part of the discharge of its function in visiting the site. The Applicant’s case 19. In the document entitled ‘Statement of Case in Response’ the Applicant dealt with the case as it then understood it, namely that the Respondent ‘queried whether revised service charges were due and payable, as per Section 20B requirements’. In short, the Applicant’s case is that ‘all invoices and demands have been served on time, and are payable and due from the Defendant in full’. 20. [NAME_26], on behalf of the Applicant, submitted that the increase in the Respondent’s share from 1/31st to 1/24th and now 1/20th was a logical reflection of the reduction in the size of the Applicant’s freehold interest in the light of, amongst other things, a recent right to manage decision by the residents of one block.

7 21. It was also submitted that the Respondent had, prior to the involvement of Counsel, not made it clear that part of her complaint was that the Applicant had failed to accompany demands with budget or estimated figures in accordance with the lease. It was submitted that had the Applicant appreciated that that was part of the Respondent’s case, then it would have produced appropriate copies. The Applicant required time to produce the purportedly absent documents, which, in part, explained the need for the Tribunal to reconvene.

22.

Accordingly, at the conclusion of the hearing on 8 August 2018, the Tribunal directed that the relevant information should be provided by 22 August 2018.

23. The Applicant sought extra time for the serving and filing of the information as a result of which the directions were varied. Although the Respondent objected to the late service the Tribunal took the view that it was material to an issue which it had to resolve and so should be admissible.

24. Both parties had an opportunity to enter further written submissions.

25. The Applicant’s response combined parts of the Respondent’s submissions and also purported to introduce additional material.

For the reasons set out above the Tribunal will exclude any additional material in the interests of finality.

26. As an aside it is surprising that comparator evidence, often informative in forming a view about the reasonableness of service charges, was not forthcoming until after the evidential clock had stopped. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has the know-how to resolve that issue.

27. In short the Applicant takes the view that the charges sought are both evidenced and reasonable.

8 The Law 28. Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides as follows: 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, [NAME_27] 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. (4) No application under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which— (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post- dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.

9 (6) An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination— (a) in a particular manner, or (b) on particular evidence, of any question which may be the subject of an application under subsection (1) or (3). (7) The jurisdiction conferred on [F4 the appropriate tribunal] in respect of any matter by virtue of this section is in addition to any jurisdiction of a court in respect of the matter.]

29. Further, section 20C is also of relevance: 20C Limitation of service charges: costs of proceedings. (1) A tenant may make an application for an order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court [residential property tribunal] or leasehold valuation tribunal [or the First-tier Tribunal], or the [Upper Tribunal], or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the application. (2)… (3) The court or tribunal to which the application is made may make such order on the application as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.]

30. Additionally, section 35 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is also relevant: 35 Application by party to lease for variation of lease. (1) Any party to a long lease of a flat may make an application to [the appropriate tribunal] for an order varying the lease in such manner as is specified in the application.

10 (2) The grounds on which any such application may be made are that the lease fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to one or more of the following matters, namely— … (f) the computation of a service charge payable under the lease. 31. [NAME_22], in his written submissions, also drew the Tribunal’s attention to the cases of: a. [NAME_28]; b. [NAME_29]; c. [NAME_30]; and d. [NAME_31].

32. Although there was some argument in respect of interpretation of the authorities, broadly, the law is not in issue between the parties.

The validity of the service charge demands 33. The Respondent initially submitted that the demands were invalid for a number of reasons. In the light of the additional disclosure concerning the service charge budget calculations it was accepted by the Respondent that these correspond with the relevant service charge demands.

34. However, the thrust of the submission at the hearing and maintained in the supplementary submissions from [NAME_22] was to the effect that the demands were invalidated by reason of the Applicant’s decision to alter the proportion required under the lease.

1 [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch) 2 [2011] EWCA Civ1258 3 [2014] UKUT 322 (LC) 4 [2017] UKUT 70 (LC)

11 35. The lease is explicit in its use of the word ‘proportion’ and the calculation of those proportions dependent upon whether expenses related to the various blocks or the ‘Mansion’. The principal difference being buildings and grounds related costs respectively.

36. The Tribunal was urged by the Applicant to take what [NAME_26] referred to as a ‘practical approach’ to the reducing numbers of flats and increase the share payable by the Respondent.

37. It is right to say that there is an attractive logic about such an approach. However, what [NAME_32] is actually asking the Tribunal to do is sanction a unilateral variation of the lease which has an inevitable impact upon the monetary liabilities of the leaseholders including the Respondent. No formal application pursuant to section 35 of the Act of 1987 was before the Tribunal.

38. The ability of a freeholder to incur expenditure that a leaseholder is expected to pay is, for good reason, extensively regulated and can only be authorised in accordance with the terms of the lease or if statute and/or regulation provide. Scrutiny of the lease in this case reveals no mechanism for that to be done and certainly not unilaterally by the Applicant.

39. As already pointed out, the lease carefully made reference to appropriate proportions and that the Respondent’s liabilities were defined by reference to those proportions. Nowhere within the lease is there a provision for the modification of that proportion.

40. The Tribunal finds that there is no evidence of any lawful variation of the terms of the lease to reflect the increase in share of the Respondent; and, in the absence of an application pursuant to section 35 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, the Tribunal is unable to adopt the practical course suggested by [NAME_26]. Accordingly it is clear that the Applicant had no entitlement to seek the increased

12 share it did, either by the historical increase to 1/24th or, more recently, 1/20th in respect of the ‘Mansion’.

41. In respect of the 1/8 share concerning the building, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s approach to identifying sums said to be owed by the Respondent are wholly unclear and are not recoverable by reason of that lack of clarity.

42. Although necessary for the purposes of the consideration of matters of principle, in the interests of proportionality the Tribunal does not propose to engage in a page by page analysis of the documents set out in the three files provided by the Applicant. However, consideration of those documents reveals no compelling basis for the Tribunal to rely upon the evidence and/or submissions made by the Applicant in support of its case.

43. By way of an example, the Respondent’s Counsel identified pages 553, 559, 561 and 562 as referring to ‘odd’ numbered flats. Clearly they were of no relevance to Flat 14. They are not the only documents which do not relate to the Respondent’s flat.

44. This point was in part conceded by the Applicant: [redacted] fatal to the argument that the Applicant accurately communicated outstanding sums to the Respondent.

45. In relation to repairs and maintenance, the documents were largely non-specific by reference to a block. The following are but a sample of the numerous documents from which it was impossible to identify whether the Respondent’s flat was referred to: pages 118, 173, 355-365 and 407-426.

46. The Tribunal struggled to understand the basis upon which the Applicant sought to recover [NAME_33] payments for common areas. For example the reference to ‘Landlord’s lighting’ as set out on 443 is hopelessly vague; and the account numbers ending in 40 and 60 appear to have no relevance to flat 14

13 47. A further example is that the Applicant insisted it was entitled to be paid for emergency lighting in the Respondent’s block in the period after 2011 despite the fact that it was not installed until 2016. Such demands for payment were incompetent at best and misleading at worst.

48. In any event the Applicant also conceded that invoices have been charged equally rather than being related to the individual blocks as per the requirements of the lease. Yet again the Applicant appears to have failed to apply the appropriate proportion as required by the lease and has failed adequately to render meaningful requests for payment in accordance with the lease.

49. It was also submitted that the Applicant was not obliged to present to the Respondent a break down in costs reflecting only her share. The Tribunal finds that that is not a true reflection of the wording of the lease. The Lease specifically refers to the Lessee’s obligation to pay by reference to proportions of expenditure. Accordingly the Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s supplementary submission to the contrary. That is, the notices are defective by failing to specify the Respondent’s contribution.

50. In the light of the above, the Tribunal finds that the demands made by the Applicant were defective.

51. In the light of those findings the Application is dismissed.

52. Further, and in the light of the findings above, the Tribunal also concludes that it would be appropriate to direct, pursuant to section 20C of the Act of 1985, that the costs shall not be added to the service charge.

14 53. A party seeking permission to appeal this decision must make a written application to the Tribunal for permission to appeal. This application must be received by the Tribunal no later than 28 days after the date this decision is sent to the parties. Further information is contained within Part 6 of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (S.I. 2013 No. 1169).

Judge Andrew McNamara 24 January 2019

1

Case Reference: BIR/00CS/LIS/2018/0011

Property:

Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Respondent: [redacted] [NAME_16], Direct Access Counsel.

Tribunal Members: Judge A [NAME_18]

Date of Decision: 24 January 2019

_______________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

22.

10 (2) The grounds on which any such application may be made are that the lease fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to one or more of the following matters, namely— … (f) the computation of a service charge payable under the lease. 31. [NAME_22], in his written submissions, also drew the Tribunal’s attention to the cases of: a. [NAME_34]; b. [NAME_35]; c. [NAME_36]; and d. [NAME_37].

Judge Andrew McNamara 24 January 2019

1

Case Reference: BIR/00CS/LIS/2018/0011

Property:

Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Respondent: [redacted] [NAME_16], Direct Access Counsel.

Tribunal Members: Judge A [NAME_18]

Date of Decision: 24 January 2019

_______________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

22.

10 (2) The grounds on which any such application may be made are that the lease fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to one or more of the following matters, namely— … (f) the computation of a service charge payable under the lease. 31. [NAME_22], in his written submissions, also drew the Tribunal’s attention to the cases of: a. Brent LBC v Shulem B Association Ltd1; b. Freeholders of 69 Marina v Oram2; c. Barrett v Robinson3; and d. Bretby Hall Management Company Ltd v Pratt4.

Judge Andrew McNamara 24 January 2019

1

Case Reference: BIR/00CS/LIS/2018/0011

Property:

Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Respondent: [redacted] [NAME_16], Direct Access Counsel.

Tribunal Members: Judge A [NAME_18]

Date of Decision: 24 January 2019

_______________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

22.

Judge Andrew McNamara 24 January 2019

1

Case Reference: BIR/00CS/LIS/2018/0011

Property:

Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Respondent: [redacted] [NAME_16], Direct Access Counsel.

Tribunal Members: Judge A [NAME_18]

Date of Decision: 24 January 2019

_______________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

22.

10 (2) The grounds on which any such application may be made are that the lease fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to one or more of the following matters, namely— … (f) the computation of a service charge payable under the lease. 31. [NAME_22], in his written submissions, also drew the Tribunal’s attention to the cases of: a. [NAME_38]; b. [NAME_39]; c. [NAME_40]; and d. [NAME_41].

Judge Andrew McNamara 24 January 2019

1

Case Reference: BIR/00CS/LIS/2018/0011

Property:

Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Respondent: [redacted] [NAME_16], Direct Access Counsel.

Tribunal Members: Judge A [NAME_18]

Date of Decision: 24 January 2019

_______________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2019

22.

10 (2) The grounds on which any such application may be made are that the lease fails to make satisfactory provision with respect to one or more of the following matters, namely— … (f) the computation of a service charge payable under the lease. 31. [NAME_22], in his written submissions, also drew the Tribunal’s attention to the cases of: a. [NAME_42]; b. [NAME_43]; c. [NAME_44]; and d. [NAME_45].

Judge Andrew McNamara 24 January 2019

1

Case Reference: BIR/00CS/LIS/2018/0011

Property:

Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Applicant: [redacted] [NAME_10] instructed by [COMPANY_103]

Respondent: [redacted] [NAME_16], Direct Access Counsel.

Date & Venue of Hearing: 10-11 September 2019. The Tribunal reconvened on 2 further occasions, namely 18 October and 5 November 2019. This decision follows the application by the Respondent for permission to appeal.

Date of decision: 17 June 2020

Tribunal Members: Judge A [NAME_18] DECISION _____________________________________________________

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020

2 Introduction

1. This decision is a review in the light of the Respondent’s Application for Permission to Appeal dated 9 April 2020, drafted by [NAME_22]; the Respondent’s accompanying additional document sent under cover of a letter also dated 9 April 2020; and the Applicant’s submissions dated 18 May 2020. This decision should be read in conjunction with the decision dated 14 February 2020.

2. This review is designed to correct arithmetical errors between the decision/Scott Schedule dated 14 February 2020 and to rectify and explain apparent inconsistencies between the reasoning and the Schedule.

3. At the hearing; in the light of a substantial number of concessions from the Applicant; and the Tribunal having formed the view that numerous components of the Applicant’s service charge ‘demands’ (the presence of quotation marks is meant only to convey their continuing disputed status) were unreasonable, it was the intention of the Tribunal, in the round, to reduce the liability of the Applicant. A further application of that logic was that the Tribunal chose to round figures down rather than up.

4. To provide clarity and transparency as to the Tribunal’s approach we confirm that, having been presented with a fee for a particular service, the Tribunal has reviewed that fee or charge and compared it with what, in its view, was considered a reasonable fee or charge for the service. Where the fee or charge was less or the same as what was considered reasonable such figures have not been amended but where they were considered unreasonable amendments have been made.

3 5. Although implicit, one significant qualification was absent from the decision. That is that credit must be given for sums already paid to the Applicant to the Respondent. Permission to appeal 6. Given the procedural history of this case, and that the Tribunal was ‘troubled’ by the issue in relation to the validity of service charge demands, permission to appeal is granted as set out in the short accompanying decision of even date. [NAME_46]

7. The Tribunal’s assessment of this aspect of the case was set out at paragraphs 76-79.

8. In the light of the application for permission to appeal, the Tribunal has revisited this element and now concludes as follows: a. In order to establish if a charge is reasonable the Tribunal must take an holistic view of the charges in the marketplace for providing the same or a similar service within an appropriate geographical area. The Tribunal has reviewed the information provided by both parties. b. The Respondent offered some comparable evidence in relation to properties in [NAME_25] which originally formed part of the development and should therefore, due to the similarities of location and construction, be reflected in the Tribunal’s decision. The Respondent also provided a note from one of the owners of the block that had been subject to a right to manage scheme indicating an [NAME_27] premium for their block to which the above comments equally apply.

4 c. However there are a number of factors which need to be taken into account and would be reflected in the underwriting process to produce a premium. Supportive of the Respondent’s position is that the buildings are adjacent and of a similar construction. However no evidence was produced as to the nature of the policy on a range of factors including: the claims history; levels of cover for individual specified items; confirmation of re-instatement figures; and, for example, if additional cover was included within the premiums for subletting. d. The Respondent also produced a letter from [NAME_47] forming a quotation for flat 12 [NAME_1] in the sum of either £473.00 or £561.66 depending on the Insurer. However, the building’s declared value is £600,000.00 which would indicate that this would cover a number of flats although this is not specified in the quotation. Thus it was unclear from the document produced the extent of the premises covered. Further, it is equally unclear as to the basis of the quotation by reference to the crucial factors set out above. e. The Tribunal had many of the same issues of lack of details in relation to the premium figure provided by the [NAME_48] of the adjacent block 18-24. The Tribunal would have found it of greater assistance if the more formal of the quotations had been clear in relation to the property covered and the information upon which any quotation was based. f.

Accordingly, the Tribunal was put in a position that, despite the efforts of the Respondent to produce the information requested, it was

5 insufficiently comprehensive to form a view. In other words there were too many variables. g. Having reviewed all of the information provided by the Parties, the Tribunal formed the view that some weight could be applied to the Respondent’s evidence but, due to the nature of the variables that had not been addressed, it was necessary to utilise the experience of the Tribunal to come to a conclusion. That conclusion was that the premiums sought by the Applicant were excessive and could not be justified and instead adopts the following figures as reasonable representing a premium per unit inclusive of IPT. Year Tribunal’s figure in decision £ 1/31 of cost in accounts £ Tribunal’s award £ 2009 110 87.93 87.93 2010 81.41 63.03 63.03 2011 115 109.38 109.38 2012 122 127.45 122 2013 130 154.61 130 2014 137 182.87 137 2015 145 190.19 145 2016 154 199.83 154 2017 163 192.23 163 Total 1157.41 1307.52 1111.34

h. For the sake of clarity the Tribunal’s view (first column) is typical of charges in the market including tax. The second column is the amount that would be charged if the sums in the accounts were viewed as reasonable based on 1/31 per leaseholder as required under the lease. The third column is the Tribunal decision as to the amount to be charged. Thus, in the years 2009- 2011 it is the Tribunal’s view that the charges are reasonable. However from 2012 – 2017 the charges are unreasonable.

6 i. The Tribunal’s interpretation of the lease is that the Respondent is liable for 1/31 of the total cost and this does create an anomaly as, for the period of the claim, there were only 24 flats. Although it could be argued that this creates an artificially low figure for the Respondent, that is the requirement under the lease and those are the proportions that must be applied. Management fees 9. This was dealt with at paragraphs 99-104. As is evident from the decision the Tribunal took the view that Management Fees were too high. However, the Schedule did not reflect that finding. The following also seeks to correct an arithmetical error in relation to changes in the prevailing rate of VAT.

10. The Tribunal adds the following: a. In order to establish if a charge is reasonable the Tribunal must take a similarly holistic view of the charges in the marketplace for providing the same or a similar service within an appropriate geographical area. The Tribunal reviewed the information provided by both parties and is also mindful that the Applicant does not need to accept the lowest available fee in the marketplace but the fee they charge must be reasonable. b. In relation to the level of management fees, the Applicant confirmed that these were assessed on the basis of splitting the country into the North, the Midlands and the South. They were considered to be homogeneous throughout these large regions but the Tribunal is of the view that fees should be of a more nuanced nature reflecting market conditions in the area in which the property is located. In the view of the Tribunal, this is a major factor in establishing an appropriate level

7 of management fee.

Accordingly, the Tribunal placed no weight upon the comparator evidence provided by the Applicant, since, in the absence of expert evidence, one would struggle to compare a listed building in Melton Mowbray with a mid-century modern development such as [NAME_1]. c. The Respondent referred to the [NAME_25] properties and the fees being charged to manage them. Those properties are located adjacent to the subject property and are directly comparable in terms of age and construction. Indeed it would appear that [NAME_25] may formerly have formed part of the estate. Whilst the Respondent had endeavoured to provide the information as requested, this was far from comprehensive: the Tribunal was therefore unable to establish the extent of the services provided under the contract, or even confirm the source of the fees that had been indicated other than being represented in a budget which of course may or may not be the actual cost to appear in the final accounts. The Tribunal would have been assisted to a much greater extent if a formal quotation from the managing agent of [NAME_25] had been obtained outlining the level of services and the fee required to provide such services. d. That said, the Tribunal did take into account the fact that the figures put forward by the Respondent indicated that the fees being charged by the Applicant appeared to be out of line with fees available from one source in the marketplace. e. Thus, whilst some weight was applied to the Respondent’s evidence, due to the locality and similarity of buildings, this had to be viewed in the context of typical charges for a service within this overall locality

8 and region for developments of a similar nature. Therefore, the Tribunal also needed to use its experience of fees for management services. f. In the light of that the Tribunal finds that the management costs were higher than is justified.

Accordingly, the Tribunal substitutes the figures set out below. For the sake of clarity these are considered to be realistic figures for the management function per unit inclusive of the prevailing rate of VAT. This, in part, also rectifies a calculation error shown in the Scott Schedule in relation to the changing rate of VAT over the period 2009-2017: Year Initial decision £ 1/31 of costs in accounts £ Review £ 2009 175 181.93 168 2010 175 181.93 171 2011 180 186.77 180 2012 180 186.77 180 2013 185 185.80 185 2014 185 185.80 185 2015 190 185.80 185.80 2016 190 185.80 185.80 2017 195 185.80 185.80

g. This reflects the Tribunal’s view that the adoption of a virtually static fee gave rise to the obvious inference that, in the period 2009 – 14, the fees were excessive; and, thereafter, appeared to become more reasonable due only to the effluxion of time. [NAME_23]

11. This was dealt with at paragraphs 80-90.

12. Having revisited this aspect of the decision the Tribunal adds the following and the figures in the revised table are substituted:

9 a. For the avoidance of doubt, it is the Tribunal’s view that cleaning does not amount to the same thing as [NAME_23], since the latter conveys a degree of on-site presence and the fulfilment of tasks other than cleaning.

Accordingly, the Respondent was clearly getting something less than [NAME_23] and limited to cleaning but being charged for notional [NAME_23]. b. The Tribunal utilized its experience to establish the net cost for providing a cleaning service and then added VAT at the prevailing rate. The Tribunal is of the view that although the hourly rate for a cleaning service would have increased from 2009 to 2017, the sums sought by the Applicant were unreasonable because they reflected only a cleaning role rather than the broader notion of [NAME_23] as alleged. c. Accordingly the Tribunal has used its experience in establishing the length of time it would take to carry out the cleaning function and has utilised an hourly rate of £14.00/hr for the period 2009 to 2011; £16.00/hr for the period 2012 to 2014; and £20.00/hr for the period 2015 to 2017. The Tribunal allows i.e. 1.5 hours per week as per the table below. d. The revised figures are set out in the table below and include VAT at the prevailing rate: Year Amount in Accounts Cost for the development Award decision Flat 14 2009 £2070 £1255.80 £52.32 2010 £2291 £1283.10 £53.46 2011 £2160 £1310.40 £54.60 2012 £2160 £1497.60 £62.40 2013 £2496 £1497.60 £62.40 2014 £2496 £1497.60 £62.40 2015 £2496 £1872.00 £78.00 2016 £2496 £1872.00 £78.00

10 2017 £2496 £1872.00 £78.00 Total £581.58

Window cleaning 13. The Tribunal also accepts that it fell into error in calculating the window cleaning charges and should instead have awarded only 1/24 of the total figure.

14. Further, by way of explanation, in the light of the Tribunal’s experience, the £63 per visit figure set out in the decision reflected what the Tribunal considered to be a reasonable figure for the communal window cleaning to all blocks. The table below incorporates the corrected figures: Year Awarded (£) No. visits Revised award (£) 2009 15.76 2 5.25 2010 15.76 2 5.25 2011 55.16 7 18.38 2012 39.40 5 13.13 2013 47.28 6 15.75 2014 63.04 8 21.00 2015 47.28 6 15.75 2016 47.28 6 15.75 2017 31.52 4 10.50 Banking charges 15. The Tribunal accepts that it fell into error by describing banking charges as a Mansion cost and applying the incorrect share: §75 of the decision should have identified the share as 1/31. The revised figures are set out below: 2009 £10.03 2010 £6.77 2011 £2.56

11 2012 £2.74 2013 £3.25 2014 £3.96 2015 £3.24 2016 £0.41 2017 £2.74

Revised conclusion 16. In the light of the above, the figures in paragraph 107, at the conclusion of the decision, are revised as follows: Year Original decision £ Review £ 2009 611.57 500.23 2010 621.76 509.90 2011 620.43 505.50 2012 1184.89 837.58 2013 941.56 818.82 2014 778.88 657.07 2015 947.67 846.99 2016 1037.05 937.19 2017 717.98 623.84 Total 7461.79 6237.12

17. For the avoidance of any doubt the Applicant must give credit for any sums received as against the total in paragraph 16 above.

12 18. The above decision reflects the concessions made by the Applicant in its submissions in relation to arithmetical errors.

Judge [NAME_49], FRICS. 17 June 2020.

Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (A112) 595.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £24.79 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total (based on their 2017 figures) Please note that the actual cost is £445. Invoice £595 (A112) was partially credited in 2011 (A215) Credit note 569 (£595 - £150) [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] works out at £18.54 per property. This £595 charge is made entirely by [NAME_54]. Considering this was the beginning of [NAME_52] tenure as [NAME_53], and therefore practically no maintenance costs needed to be considered, we query the value of this invoice. [NAME_13] commenced managing this development 01/10/2008. The Accounts would have to be set up and completed as per any other year and this would be a standard fee for that size development. Please note that this invoice was partially credited in 2011, to reduce the charge to £445 [NAME_54]'s £595 invoice to construct the 2009 accounts was not raised until 1st May 2012. This expense was acrued for at the time when the year end accounts were prepared and invoiced at a later date The 2009 accounts were not independently certified until February 2014, see [NAME_57] invoice (A254) which charges £600 to retrosepctively accredit the years 2008 to 2011 inclusive. We question this delay. The certification was carried out in 2011 and charged in the relevant year. It's not applicable to this financial year. We note the address on [NAME_56]'s invoices is the same address as [NAME_13]. [NAME_57] is an [NAME_113] who carried out certification at [NAME_51]'s offices where all the information was available to him. The respondent was billed an excess charge of £56.05 (A51) for 2009, for which the invoice is dated 28/06/2011. This invoice was issued nearly a year before [NAME_54] charged for compiling the 2009 accounts and nearly 3 years before these accounts were independently accredited. The accounting fee was accrued for at the time the accounting analysis was carried out and the actual invoice was issued at a later date. [COMPANY_61] (A113-A117) 311.17 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £10.03 [NAME_46] (A81 - A84) 3092.70( This should be £2726) Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £88 [NAME_62] conflicting figures for 2009 [NAME_46]. Bundle A page 4 summary states £2726. The 2009 income and expenditure list agrees with this figure (A61). Page A 62 lists this very same cost as both £2726 and £3092.70 in different places. There is no explanation for the discrepancy These figures are not conflicting. The I & E matches the invoice list total. Page 62 lists 2 separate invoices which totals more that the £2726 because these 2 invoices spread over more than 1 financial year and do not match the period of the accounting year exactly, therefore it has been calculated in a pro rata form. [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2009 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

There is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out We can see no invoice in the bundle from the actual [NAME_27] company. Pages A428 and 429 are simply internal invoices from the Freeholder to [NAME_12]. Page 83 is a renewal notice direct from the Insurers? Invoices are put in the bundle to prove costs rather than the [NAME_27] certificates. [NAME_23] (A64-A80) 2,083.60 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid 52.32 *Page A62 lists 2 different figures for this item, £2,083 and £2070 (which is also the figure in the summary on page A4) This was an accounting error which has worked out in the leaseholders favour as the invoices totalled more than accounted for in this year. This equals about £86 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison based on [NAME_25]'s 2017 figure. [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. From April 2009, when [NAME_68] took over gardening from subcontractor [NAME_99], gardening tasks appear on the same invoices as [NAME_23] duties. An incorrect invoice description was used which included gardening tasks in error. [NAME_23] and gardening on this site was carried out by different people and invoiced separately. [NAME_69] (A119-A122) 2,083.65 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £67.21 [NAME_25]'s charge for gardening is comparable with this, based on [NAME_25]'s 2017 figures. It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. [NAME_25] also doesn’t have a comparble area of grounds. From 2009, when [NAME_68] took over gardening from subcontractor [NAME_72], gardening tasks appear to have been included as part of [NAME_23] duties. [NAME_12] make no separate charge for gardening done during this period until 1st MAY 2014 (see A 122). This charge was accrued for in the year end accounts and the actual invoice was raised at a later date. [NAME_33] (A92 - A99) 1,479.78 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £61.72 [NAME_12] give 2 contradicting figures for the 2009 [NAME_33] total. Bundle A page 4 states £1439, as does the income and expenditure account 2009 (A61), but the accompanying invoices list on A62 & A63 states £1479.78. This is due to accruals and prepayments. When preparing accounts the first and the last invoice for the year is usually split between the years depending on the period that it covers. The payments listed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule shows what was the actual cost for this block. Fire Risk Assessment (A123) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £240/31 = £7.74 Health and Safety Risk Assessment (A123) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £240/31 = £7.74

[NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep-18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and involve a high degree of repetition year on year. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (A100 - A111) 5,640.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid 168 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £200+VAT per flat per annum as opposed to £125+VAT per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. Window Cleaning (A124) 193.20 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. 5.25 [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. [NAME_73] 2 lamps in common area and tidy it (B118) 209.88 £ 2009 demands charge the respondent 1/24th. The [NAME_68] invoice does not identify which flat or block this relates to. The main cost is for trailer hire (£40 plus VAT), tipping Fees (£85 plus VAT) and labour (£50 plus VAT), and while it's not specified, which block the 2 lamps relate to, their cost is only £7.50 plus VAT. The rest of the charge is the estate charge as we would not know which resident has dumped the carpet. Lamps - £7.50; carpet removal mansion cost (1/31) In their appeal submission, 16th Feb-2019, [NAME_62] "it wasn't clear when completing the recalculation who this repair related to and therefore it was apportioned equally to all blocks at £34.98." Please see above [NAME_12] continue to charge all blocks for this item, even though it clearly could have only related to one block. Please see above Total 500.23

Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (A165 - A166) 745.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £31.04 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total (based on their 2017 figures) Please note that the actual cost is £445. Invoice £595 (A165) was partially credited in 2011 (A215) Credit note 569 (£595 - £150) [NAME_54] have invoiced in house £595 and £150 separately to equal £745. While £595 invoice (A165) is just within 18 months of the 2010 year end, the additional invoice for £150 (A166) is not raised until June 2016. The cost was accrued for and charged to the building at the time when the year end accounts were prepared. The actual invoice for £ 595 was raised at a later date. An accrual for £150 was included in accounts incorrectly and we credited it in the following year. The invoice was produced at a later date to balance the accounts hence dated June 2016 The 2010 accounts were not independently certified until February 2014, see [NAME_57] invoice (A254) which charges £600 to retrosepctively accredit the years 2008 to 2011 inclusive. We question this delay. The certification was carried out in 2011 and charged in the relevant year. It's not applicable to this financial year. We note the address on [NAME_56]'s invoices is the same address as [NAME_13]. [NAME_57] is an [NAME_113] who carried out certification at [NAME_51]'s offices where all the information was available to him. Given a further invoice for accounting was retrospectively added in 2016, seemingly needed to make [NAME_52] £745 charge match their invoice totals, we have to question the accuracy and thoroughness of both [NAME_52] 2012 sign off and [NAME_57]'s 2014 sign off for the 2010 accounts. The charge for certification was accrued for in each set of annual accounts, unfortunately [NAME_57] was not raising invoices in a timely manner and sometimes invoices were sent to us a few years after the work was carried out. The respondent was billed an excess charge of £149.67 (A52) for 2010, for which the invoice is dated 29/06/2011. This invoice was issued well in advance of when these accounts were independently accredited. The excess charge invoice and the charge for compiling the accounts are 2 separate invoices and issues. The work was completed on accounts and an excess invoice sent to leaseholders & then the accounting work was invoiced at a later date as per above. [COMPANY_61] (A181-A189) 209.93 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £6.77 [NAME_46] (A178 - A179) 3,174.33 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £63.03 [NAME_62] an alternative figure in different sections of their bundles. Bundle A page 4 states £1,954 as does summary table A126. Page A 127 gives a total of £3,174.33. These figures are not conflicting. The I & E matches the invoice list total. Page 62 lists 2 separate invoices which totals more that the £2726 because these 2 invoices spread over more than 1 financial year and do not match the period of the accounting year exactly, therefore it has been calculated in a pro rata form. Typically, [NAME_27] charged by [NAME_12] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2010 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

There is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out We can see no invoice in the bundle from the actual [NAME_27] company. Pages A428 and 429 are simply internal invoices from the Freeholder to [NAME_12]. Page 83 is a renewal notice direct from the Insurers? Invoices are put in the bundle to prove costs rather than the [NAME_27] certificates. Cleaning / [NAME_23] (A129-A152) 2,291.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £53.46 [NAME_12] offer varying figures for this item in their bundles. Page A4 summary states £2,291 which matches the 2010 income and expenditure account (A 125), but the invoice list supporting this total on A126 states £2115.00 The charge for the year was £2,115.00 as per invoice list, unfortunately, due to an accounting error, the year end accounting analysis calculated the charge for 13 months instead of 12 hence the difference of £176. This equals about £95 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison made to 2017 figure [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. Gardening tasks appear on the same invoices as [NAME_23] duties througout the year. An incorrect invoice description was used which included gardening tasks in error. [NAME_23] and gardening on this site was carried out by different people and invoiced separately. [NAME_69] (A177) 2,118.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £68.32 [NAME_12] offer slightly different figures for this item in their bundles. Page A4 summary states £2,118 which matches the 2010 income and expenditure account (A 125), but the invoice list supporting this total on A127 states £2115.00. Typo error in the year end accounts. Should be £2115 [NAME_25]'s charge for gardening is comparable with this, based on [NAME_25]'s 2017 figures. It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. During 2010, [NAME_12] make no separate charge for gardening. This invoice is not presented until 1st MAY 2014 (see A 177). The cost for this work was accrued for in the year end accounts. The actual invoice was not raised until 01/05/2014, but the costs were incurred and accounted for in the correct year. [NAME_33] (A190 - A213) 996.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £18.13 [NAME_12] give 2 contradicting figures for the 2010 [NAME_33] total. Bundle A page 4 states £869, as does the income and expenditure account 2010 (A125), but the accompanying invoice list on A127 & A128 states £996. This is due to accruals and prepayments. When preparing accounts the first and the last invoice for the year is usually split between the years depending on the period that it covers. The payments listed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule shows what was the actual cost for this block. Fire Risk Assessment (A180) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74

Health and Safety Risk Assessment (A180) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 [NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep-18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (A153 - A164) 5,640.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £171.00 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £200 +VAT per flat per annum as opposed to £125+VAT per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. Window Cleaning (A180a) 394.80 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £5.25 [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. [NAME_73] - undercoat and gloss woodwork / communal areas (A171) 3,149.00 £ 2010 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet split this across all blocks but appears to increase the total to £4339.67. There is no explanation for this discrepancy The invoice was split correctly between the blocks. On the spreadsheet there seems to be a total amount for block 1 in addition to the split per 4 units, making overall figure £4339.67 (3149 + 1049.67), however this does not affect the split. Tribunal allows £2400 inclusive of VAT. Propotion is 1/31. Therefore £77.42 Invoice not broken down sufficiently to ascertain reasonableness of charge - material (paint) cost and hours/days worked is not specified. This appears grossly excessive based on the labour hours and material costs needed for straight forward painting work of this scope. Invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. Materials: 5 litres of gloss and 5 litres of undercoat. Labour - 8 days (prepare, undercoat and gloss outside doors and windows for all 6 buildings) Attend to damaged front doors (A172) 141.00 £ 2010 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this solely to respondent's block without qualification. [NAME_68] invoice does not identify a flat or block. This was checked on the job sheet and is correct and that is why it was allocated to the respondents block Insufficiently precise threfeore disallowed. £0 "call out" (A173) 47.00 £ 2010 demands charge respondent 1/24th. The item is included in invoice list A127, verifying this was made in 2010. This invoice is not credited at any point in the bundles but is duplicated (see A355) and the duplicated invoice only is partially credited (A356). [NAME_12] claim in their appeal submission that this item is adjusted in the bundle C spreadsheet but this is incorrect. Only duplicate invoice and credit mentioned above is included in the recalculation This invoice was credited in full and wasn't charged to the leaseholders. It was include in the invoice list in error. £0

Leak from flat above (A174) 123.38 £ 2010 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. This item is absent from [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet, therefore the respondent is still being charged for this item. This invoice was credited in full and wasn't charged to the leaseholders. It was include in the invoice list in error. £0 Take down shelving from airing cupboards, prepare for painting (A175) 111.63 £ 2010 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. This item is absent from [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet, therefore the respondent is still being charged for this item also. This invoice was excluded from this year's analysis and accounted for in 2012. insufficiently precise threfeore disallowed. £0 appears to be an internal repair as references airing cupboards N/A Refit new stop tap (A176) 200.00 £ 2010 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. This item is absent from [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet, therefore the respondent is still being charged for this item in addition to those above. Not charged to the leaseholders, was included in the invoice list in error. £0 The invoice specifies flat 17, so the respondent should never have been charged in the first instance. Not charged TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE COST - 2010 The above invoices total £3772.01 as per the invoice list (A127) but this total is contradicted elsewhere in the bundles. The income and expenditure account for 2010 (A125) and the summary table (A4) give a total of £3,290. No explanation is present for this discrepancy, nor do subsequent adjustments in [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet account for this difference. Four invoices listed above were credited and therefore not charged to the leaseholders: 3772.01 - 47-123.48- 111.63-200= 3290 Total 509.9

Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (A253 - A254) 558.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £23.25 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total (based on their 2017 figures) [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] works out at £24.79 per property. Also, [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £879 per annum. The 2011 accounts were not independently certified until February 2014, see [NAME_57] invoice (A254) which charges £600 to retrosepctively accredit the years 2008 to 2011 inclusive. We question this delay. The certification work was completed between 2011 & 2012 and accrued for when finalising accounts for 2011. The invoice was issued at a later date. We note the address on [NAME_56]'s invoices is the same address as [NAME_13]. [NAME_57] is an [NAME_113] who carried out certification at [NAME_51]'s offices where all the information was available to him. [NAME_62] in their submitted accounts that £558 was the actual expenditure for 2011 accountancy work (A215) but offer no supporting evidence or invoices to show how the £558 total was calculated at the time. As detailed on the invoice list (A215) cost for accounts preparation £445 plus accounts certification £600; less credit note £300 (£150 for 2009 & £150 for 2010); less £150 credit to reverse incorrect accual included in 2010 accounts; less further credit of £37 which is not cpe The only chargeable Items listed on page A215 under "Accountancy" are dated between Feb-14 and May-15 and do not total £558, so cannot be the relevant documents. This same section further lists 2 credit notes, which are not included in the bundles and which have no refererence number. These credit notes are dated 31/12/2011 so cannot credibly relate to the invoices listed above, as they did not exist at that time. The costs were accured for when preparing year end accounts and invoiced at a later date. [COMPANY_61] (A255-A260) 79.44 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £2.56 [NAME_46] (A264 - A265) 3,391.41 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £109 [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out Disputed Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2011 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

We can see no invoice in the bundle from the actual [NAME_27] company. Pages A428 and 429 are simply internal invoices from the Freeholder to [NAME_12]. Page 83 is a renewal notice direct from the Insurers? Invoices are put in the bundle to prove costs rather than the [NAME_27] certificates. Cleaning / [NAME_23] (A218-A240) 2,160.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £54.60 This equals £90 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison made to 2017 figure [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. Gardening tasks appear on the same invoices as [NAME_23] duties througout the year. An incorrect invoice description was used which included gardening tasks in error. [NAME_23] and gardening on this site was carried out by different people and invoiced separately. [NAME_69] (A263) 2,160.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £69.68 [NAME_12] offer different figures for this item in their bundles. Page A4 summary states £2,160 which matches the 2011 income and expenditure account (A 215), but the invoice list supporting this total on A216 states £1980. The cost was £2160 and was accrued correctly in the year end accounts. Unfortunately it appears that the invoice, which was raised at a later date) was raised for an incorrect amount. This has been rectified in 2018 accounts. [NAME_25]'s charge for gardening is comparable with this, based on [NAME_25]'s 2017 figures. It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. During 2011, [NAME_12] make no separate charge for gardening. This invoice is not presented until 1st MAY 2014 (see A 263). This charge was accrued for in the year end accounts and the actual invoice was raised at a later date. [NAME_33] (A267 - A298) 763.05 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £15.13 [NAME_12] give 2 contradicting figures for the 2011 [NAME_33] total. Bundle A page 4 states £677, as does the income and expenditure account 2011 (A214), but the accompanying invoice list on A216 & A217 states £763.05. This is due to accruals and prepayments. When preparing accounts the first and the last invoice for the year is usually split between the years depending on the period that it covers. The payments listed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule shows what was the actual cost for this block. Fire Risk Assessment (A299) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 Health and Safety Risk Assessment (A299) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74

[NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep-18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (A241 - A252) 5,790.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £180 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £240 per flat per annum as opposed to £150 per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. Window Cleaning (A266) 1,408.34 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £18.38 [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. [NAME_73] [COMPANY_75] (A261) 624.00 £ 2011 demands charged the respondent 1/24th of this invoice. As the only other [COMPANY_75] invoice in the bundles, this invoice is clearly follows the invoice to be found at A385 (both invoiced on same day) , which was included in 2012 accounts. Both these [NAME_76] Service invoices were allocated to block 1-15 in [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet No comment required In the Applicant's previous submission to Tribunal, dated 18th September 2018, they submitted in evidence a regenerated and reworded copy of this invoice, which misleadingly attempted to allocate this entire cost to the respondent's block. We went back to the contractor and after a site meeting with [NAME_76] we asked them to clarify their invoice, there is nothing misleading about that invoice. [NAME_12] claimed that this invoice was to install emergency lighting in the respondent's block, but emergency lighting was not installed until August 2015 - see A59, [NAME_12] invoice number 530 and Fire and Safety Risk Assessment reports supplied by [NAME_13] 18th September 2018, which all clearly state emergency lighting is not installed in the respondent's block until the report dated Jan-2016 which is the first to log the installation. I am unsure why the risk assesment says that, Perhaps it was a error copied over from a previous assesment. £0: emergency lighting not installed to the R's block

[NAME_77] (A262) 540.00 £ 2011 demands charged the respondent 1/24th of this invoice. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost across the whole estate This survey was for the blocks and not the mansion and repairs are not listed under part ii of Schedule 8 in the lease therefore it is a 1/24th split 1/31st = £17.42 No copy of the report is included in the bundles or has ever been provided to the respondent We do not include copies of reports for works within bundles, invoices should be sufficient to state the work was completed If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease See above Total 505.5

Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (A340 - A342) 632.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £26.33 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total (based on their 2017 figures) [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] works out at £24.79 per property. Also, [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £879 per annum. The 2012 accounts were not independently certified until February 2014, see [NAME_57] invoice (A254) which charges £600 to retrosepctively accredit the years 2008 to 2011 inclusive. We question this delay. 2012 accounts were certified in 2013 and the charge was accrued for. The actual invoice was presented to us on 24/07/2015 (A341) which included 2012 & 2014 accounts certification. We note the address on [NAME_56]'s invoices is the same address as [NAME_13]. [NAME_57] was an [NAME_113] that worked from [NAME_51]'s offices but wasn’t employed by [NAME_51]. Bundle A page 342 is an invoice from [NAME_57] dated 21/05/2015 for £103.20. It states "to review and sign off accounts for the 5 years ending 31/12/2008 to 31/12/2012". This suggests that each of those year's accounts were not duly authorised at the time. This invoice is also viewed as a double charge, as [NAME_56] should have signed off each of these years when accrediting them, for which he has invoiced separately. This whole charge was credited in full. Please see enclosed Accounting Analysis. [NAME_62] in their submitted accounts that £632 was the actual expenditure for 2012 accountancy work (A300) but offer no supporting evidence or invoices to show how the £632 total was calculated at the time. A breakdown is on page A301 and supporting invoices The only chargeable Items listed on page A301 under "Accountancy" are dated between May-15 and Jul-15 and do not total £632, so cannot be the relevant documents used to compile the 2012 accounts. This same section further lists an undated credit note, with no reference number, of which no copy is supplied in the bundles. This undated and unsupplied credit, if legitimate, cannot credibly relate to the invoices listed above, as they did not exist at that time the accounts would have been compiled. [NAME_50] were accrued at the time of the year end accounts preparation. Actual invoices were raised at a later date. A credit note was to cancel the balance of additional accountancy work charged by [NAME_100]. [COMPANY_61] (A343-A354) 785.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £2.74 Bundle A 301 and 302 listed [COMPANY_61] as £84.77 only which matches the totals of notifications of charges issued by Barclays included in bundles. There is no explanation from [NAME_12] as to why they charge £785.00 in the final expenditure accounts on the same pages. Should be £85. The difference is due to a coding while working on the year end accounts, £700 management fees were coded as [COMPANY_61] in error. [NAME_46] (A428 - A429) 3,950.57 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £122.00 [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out We can see no invoice in the bundle from the actual [NAME_27] company. Pages A428 and 429 are simply internal invoices from the Freeholder to [NAME_12]. Page 83 is a renewal notice direct from the Insurers? Invoices are put in the bundle to prove costs rather than the [NAME_27] certificates. Cleaning / [NAME_23] (A305-A327) 2,160.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £62.40 Disputed Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2012 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

This equals £90 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison made to 2017 figure [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. Gardening tasks appear on the same invoices as [NAME_23] duties througout the year. An incorrect invoice description was used which included gardening tasks in error. [NAME_23] and gardening on this site was carried out by different people and invoiced separately. [NAME_69] (A427) 2,160.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £69.68 [NAME_25]'s charge for gardening is comparable with this, based on [NAME_25]'s 2017 figures. It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. During 2012, [NAME_12] make no separate charge for gardening. This invoice is not presented until 1st MAY 2014 (see A 427). This charge was accrued for in the year end accounts and the actual invoice was raised at a later date. [NAME_33] (A444 - A477) 778.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £5.25 Fire Risk Assessment (A430) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 Health and Safety Risk Assessment (A430) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 [NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep-18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (A328 - A339) 5,760.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £180.00 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £240 per flat per annum as opposed to £150 per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. Window Cleaning (A431) 1,005.96 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £13.13 This figure is higher than [NAME_12] themselves charge in subsequent years. Window cleaning is done and invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for.

[NAME_73] call out [NAME_78]? Credit 31098 (A355 / A356) - £41 net of credit 41.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this entirely to block 17-23 without any explanation. No flat or block is referenced on [NAME_52] invoice. Spreadsheet in bundle C clearly states Flat 17 leaking stop cock and that is why it was charged to this block - [NAME_51] checked all job sheets at the time of producing the recaculation for the split of repairs for the blocks - respondent not charged anyway as block 2 and not 3 £0 leak from flat above (A357) 123.38 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates cost to block 1-15 without explanation. No flat or block is mentioned on [NAME_52] invoice. It states on the spreadsheet - 13 [NAME_1] reported leak from flat above. [NAME_51] checked all job sheets at the time of producing the recaculation for the split of repairs for the blocks - respondent not charged as not block 3 £0 This amount seems to have been invoiced in house by [NAME_12], without any actual work taking place. There is a labour charge on there for attending and making safe a leak as per the spreadsheet description? adjust door (A358 / A359) - £198.01 net of credit 198.01 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet says "all blocks" and splits this equally between them. The spreadsheet adds, however, that 10 doors (of the 12 present at [NAME_1]) were attended to, therefore this split cannot be correct, based on [NAME_52] own information. All the doors were adjusted and it was split equally between all blocks. Insufficiently specific: £0 light fitted (A360) 58.74 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this entirely to block 1-15 which matches the information on [NAME_52] invoice. This is correct therefore block 1-15 were charged for this work when recalculated and credit/debits were issued when all the repairs where split correctly between blocks - respondent not charged? £0 This activity ( a routine bulb change ) is included and invoiced for already by [NAME_12] in [NAME_23] duties Caretakers do change bulbs if required when cleaning, however, if a responsive repair is reported and a light is out then this is additional work and charged for internal repairs - no water in flat (A361) 82.25 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to block 17-23. There is no flat or block identified on the original invoice. This is credited to the whole estate in 2015 (B398) Job sheet checked at the time of creating the bundle C spreadsheet - It clearly states on the spreadsheet Flat 17. Also factually incorrect as at the bottom of the spreadsheet you can see it was credited to block 2 as well? - respondent not charged as not block 3 £0 internal repairs - fit water mains key (A362 / A363) 216.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. Original invoice does not identify a block or flat number. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet states the work was for flat 17 but then allocates the cost entirely to block 1-15, which clearly cannot be correct. Respondent not charged anyway as not allocated to block 3 to be charged £0 Despite appearing to have reallocated this charge to another block (albeit an incorrect block) [NAME_12] still charge the respondent a share of this work by reversing the credit given against it and charging a proportion of it to her block. - see bundle C page 41 and 42 summary and invoicees for reversal of credit (C173, duplicated C176, C182, C186) This is again incorrect. The credit note number that the defendant is referring to on these pages is 39175 (listed in the 2017 invoice list), however, for this repair the credit note number is 31100 measure up communal area for carpet tiles (A364) 84.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across all blocks. See below. 1/8th of 1/3 = £3.50 A364 above and A365 below appear to be a double charge for the very same job. See below. [NAME_15] up costs for lobby carpet tiles (A365) 84.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across all blocks. [NAME_51] concede this is a duplicate in error and concede this invoice £0 re-lay slabs (A366) 231.36 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the whole estate. This was on the estate pathway therefore allocated to the estate. This does fall under part ii of schedule 8 and therefore should be 1/31st. 1/31 = £7.46 There is insufficient information on the [NAME_68] invoice to quantify whether the £175 labour charged in house by [NAME_12] is reasonable. The job description is detailed enough for the charge - it states there were dangerous trip hazrd slabs and they were removed and relayed If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease See above - agreed remove manhole covers and re-lay (A367 / A368) - £187.50 net of credit 187.50 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the whole estate. This was on the estate pathway therefore allocated to the estate. This does fall under part ii of schedule 8 and therefore should be 1/31st. 1/31 = £6.05 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease See above - agreed There is insufficient information on the [NAME_68] invoice to quantify whether the £130 labour charged in house by [NAME_12] is reasonable. What more information do you need? The job description states it all - remove manhole covers, remove cement and old mortar, lay new mortar launch edges so no trip hazard remove rubbish (A369) 144.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the whole estate. Removing rubbish is not on part 2 of schedule 8 and therefore it is fair to charge 1/24th as per repairs on part 1 of schedule 8. 1/31 = £4.65 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease See above

There is insufficient information on the [NAME_68] invoice to quantify whether the £90 labour charged in house by [NAME_12] is reasonable, or whether this rubbish removal should be included within [NAME_23] charges, already invoiced by [NAME_12]. This charge is fair and justified and would include travel, labour and going to the waste disposal site to tip. internal repair - trace water into flat (A370) 82.25 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to flat 17 (block 17-23). There is no flat or block identified on [NAME_52] invoice but clearly the respondent should not be charged. The respondent hasn’t been charge this is on block 2 and not block 3. £0 site survey (A371) 41.13 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the whole estate. This was to survey the roof on the site by a maintenance engineer No evidence = £0 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease If this was a roof survey then this is charged correctly to all blocks and is not an estate repair The [NAME_68] invoice simply says "site survey". In the absence of any other information, the legitimacy of this charge is disputed. Unfortuantely at the time we didn’t record the details of the survey however it did take place and the charge is legitimate tested fitting replaced lamp (A372 / A373) - £16.75 net of credit. 16.75 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the respondent's block only, which matches the flat numbers referenced on [NAME_12]' s original invoice for £58.76. Correct - the lamp was replaced in block 3 and the the respondent has only been billed for this 1/8 = £2.09 This labour (for changing a light bulb) is already invoiced under [NAME_79], which includes ensuring all lights are working correctly. Labour is not allocated to [NAME_23] if it is a responsive repair - only if caretakers notice when completing their visits A credit is made 4 years later without explanation. This was due to re-calculating all repairs against each block as the defendant knows tested fitting replaced lamp (A374) 58.76 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the respondent's block only, which matches the flat numbers referenced on [NAME_12]' s original invoice. Correct - the respondent knows the bundle C spreadsheet was an analysis and re-invoicing of repairs that were split to the correct blocks 1/8 = £7.35 This labour (for changing a light bulb) is already invoiced under [NAME_79], which includes ensuring all lights are working correctly. Labour is not allocated to [NAME_23] if it is a responsive repair - only if caretakers notice when completing their visits check condition of grounds (A375) 84.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the whole estate. Correct - it was an assessment of the whole estate £0 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This was on the estate inspection and therefore allocated to the estate. This does fall under part ii of schedule 8 and therefore should be 1/31st. This invoice is charged in house by [NAME_68]. It simply states "check condition of grounds". Surely, this is already included in [NAME_23] and/or grounds keeping which are charged separately. [NAME_51] concede this invoice as we agree this could have been charged within the [NAME_80] risk assessment or [NAME_23] tested fitting - loose connection - replaced light (A376 / A377) 17.99 net of credit 17.99 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to block 18-24. There is no flat or block identified on [NAME_52] invoice. Respondent not charged anyway as not allocated to block 3 to be charged £0 [NAME_12] originally charged labour on this routine light bulb change, which is already charged for under [NAME_23]. This is credited back 4 years later in 2016 It is credited when the repairs analysis was carried out and it was a responsive repair and not [NAME_23] [NAME_12] are marking up the material cost (one light bulb) at more than triple the [NAME_15] they are available to the public. There is no material cost on this invoice so how can a wild assumption like this be made? get ladders round property - temp fix roof leak (A378) 126.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to block 1-15 with no qualification. There is no flat or block identified on [NAME_52] invoice. The qualification was from the job sheet and it wasn’t charged to the respondents block 3 so is not relevant for these proceedings? £0 waited on site for tenant - left note to contact office (A379) 84.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. There is no flat or block identified on [NAME_52] invoice. The bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to flat 10 which is within the respondent's block. The Leaseholder of flat 10 has no knowledge of this event and the respondent does not feel this can be reasonably charged to her. If a resident reports a problem and we send out a contractor to site only to find that the resident isnt at the property then we will still have to pay the contractor for his attendance Poorly particularised so disallowed = £0 No work was done by [NAME_12] here, yet a charge is made. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever as to what this charge is actually for, it is disputed. If a resident reports a problem and we send out a contractor to site only to find that the resident isnt at the property then we will still have to pay the contractor for his attendance replaced lamp in communal area (A380 / A381) - £17.99 17.99 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of £59.99). [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to 18-24 without qualification. No block or flat is identified on [NAME_52]. The respondent should not be charged. The qualification was the checking of the job sheet from the operative at the time of the individual block analysis - the respondent should be charge as work completed Poorly particularised so disallowed = £0 [NAME_12] originally charged labour on this routine light bulb change, which is already charged for under [NAME_23]. This is credited back 4 years later in 2016. Responsive repair so not completed as part of [NAME_23] duties

[NAME_12] are marking up the material cost (one light bulb) at more than triple the [NAME_15] they are available to the public. Again, there is not material cost on the invoice so therefore it is just an assumption being made again? call out OOH light not working (A382) 369.83 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to block 1-15 which matches the information on the spreadsheet This is block 1 and not block 3 therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 £369.83 for a routine light bulb is considered to be extortionate. This is charged in house by [NAME_68]. This is block 1 and not block 3 therefore is not part of these proceedings replaced lamp and starter swicth (A383 / A384) - £22.19 net of credit 22.19 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of £64.19. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to block 17- 23 which matches the original invoice. This is block 2 and not block 3 therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 [NAME_12] are marking up the material costs. This is block 2 and not block 3 therefore is not part of these proceedings Electrical call out - [COMPANY_75] (A385) 54.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this entirely to block 1-15. This is block 1 and not block 3 therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 Water jetting by [NAME_81] (A386 & A387) 456.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to the whole estate. This is an estate repair - agreed that it should be charged to the estate as 1/31st 1/31 = £14.71 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease See above Roof repairs by [NAME_82] (A388) 300.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this entirely to block 18-24, however the subcontractor's invoice states this was at flat 11, which is not in block 18- 24, neither is it in the respondent's block. None of these blocks are block 3 which is part of these proceedings, therefore not part of these proceedings and the respondent has not been charged £0 Electrical works by [NAME_83] (A389) 415.80 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates one quarter of this cost to the respondent's block , one quarter to block 18-24 and one half to block 1-15. [NAME_12] have not directed the subcontractor to break their invoice down by block (presumably because the estate was not being managed correctly as per the Lease). Therefore insufficient is now available to determine what the correct proportion would have been. Due to the time laps the subcontractor cannot locate these records No evidence = £0 door on block 1-7, 10-16, 18-24 (A390) 66.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates one third each to respondent's block, block 1-15, and 18-24 which matches the information on the invoice. Correct this was 1 repair in each of the 3 blocks and the cost was split equally. 1/8th of 1/3 = £2.75 quote for cosumer unit upgrades (A391) 168.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across the estate, while themselves questioning "should this be charged?" The Admin team put the comment in to check with the Area Property Manager. The answer is yes it should be charged. Disallowed = £0 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease It is an internal repair but for all 3 blocks as it is for internal consumer units and therefore not part of the estate Obtaining quotes for works is surely a routine component of management and not worthy of an additional charge. No further comments to the above remove steel tubes/concrete over (A392 / A393) - £84.00 NET OF CREDIT 84.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across the estate. This is an estate repair - agreed that it should be charged to the estate as 1/31st 1/31 = £2.71 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease See above two stop cock covers altered (A394 / A395) - £102 net of credit 102.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across the estate. This is an estate repair - agreed that it should be charged to the estate as 1/31st 1/31 = £3.29 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease See above inspect all gutters on site (A396 / A397) £198 net of credit 198.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across the estate. This is repairs on all blocks and not pathway or estate so has been charged correctly. 1/8th of 1/3 = £8.25 From their invoice works description, [NAME_12] appear to have worked predominantly on one block here (fixing a leaking gutter), but do not specifiy which It doesn’t say predominatly one, it states "one leaking and several blocked" 5 x manhole covers relaunched (A398) 324.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across the estate. See below. 1/31 = £10.45 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This is an estate repair - agreed that it should be charged to the estate as 1/31st This appears to overlap with or duplicate A394/395 (done the following month) from the works description. This is a separate repair, the description clearly states stop cock covers x 2 on one job and manhole covers x 5 on the other Emergency? Light work in communal areas (A399 / A400) - £255.62 net of credit 255.82 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of £285.82). [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to block 1-15 which matches the invoice This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0

£255.62 for changing 2 light bulbs is extortionate. The invoice is unclear as to how the total amount is calculated. Job invoiced in house by [NAME_12]. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings OOH call out - from 2 blocks? (A401) 216.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to block 1-15 which matches the invoice. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 The invoice says [NAME_84] recrified the problem. [NAME_12] have charged £216 for merely attending and there is no breakdown or justification of this cost. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings communal light tested and replaced fitting and lamp (A402 / A403) - £195.83 net of credit 195.83 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to respondent's block which matches the invoice Correct - this was the respondents block Cost on high side. Allow £20 for R's share £195.83 is considered highly excessive, particularly given this job names the caretaker, who is already paid separately to ensure all communal lights are working. The majority of this cost (£153) was for materials as the light fitting and the lamp were both replaced. silicon sealed outside door reveals & removed paint spots from carpet tiles. Also painted all rendered areas of block front and back (A404) 400.80 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to respondent's block which matches the invoice Correct this was charge to block 3 only when the repairs adjustement was completed Allowed as sought. R's share 1/8 = £50.10 Labour seems excessive given the painted areas referred to on the invoice are relatively small. The invoice does not quantify hours worked or hourly rate charged. This job was done in house by [NAME_68]. The rendered area is a large area at both the front and rear of the porperty and takes time to prepare and paint correclty especially when taking into account the health and safety aspect of the work communal refurb and some painting (A405 / A406) - £210 net of credit 210.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this entirely to respondent's block without qualifictaion. The [NAME_68] invoice does not identify a flat or block. The qualification was checking the job sheet and confirming it was the respondents block. This has been invoiced correctly. Allowed as sought. R's share 1/8 = £26.25 various roof tiles replaced (A407 / A408) - £346.80 net of credit 346.80 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to respondent's block, despite identifying it as block 17-23. It is clearly block 3 as it says it on the invoice and was charged correctly. The block on the column within the spreadsheet was a typing error. £0 communal frontage refurb (A409 / A410) - £1122.31 net of credit 1,122.31 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this invoice entirely to the respondent's block without qualification. The [NAME_68] invoice does not identify a flat or block. It is important to remember when completing the repairs analysis to split between all blocks EVERY SINGLE job sheet was recovered to complete this task, therefore IT IS with qualification that it is allocated to the respondents block. Allowed as sought. R's share 1/8 = £140.29 ceilings in blocks repainted 1-7, 9-15, 18-24 (A411 / A412) - £648.00 net of credit 648.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally across all blocks. The works have been carried out as per the invoice Allowed as sought. R's share 1/8 = £18.67 The [NAME_68] invoice lists 2 separate days of work. Some blocks are listed in each day, while some are not. An equal split between all blocks does NOT match this works description. It appears that [NAME_12] have split this equally across all blocks as they are unable to determine how it should have been divided. The works have been carried out as per the invoice painting communal areas? (A413 / A414) - £1531.80 1,531.80 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of £1795.80). [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to block 18- 24 which matches the invoice. This is a repair for Block 2 and not Block 3, therefore it is not part of these proceedings £0 OOH call out replaced 3 lamps in 3? Areas just 2 areas listed (A415) 269.96 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to block 1-15 which matches the invoice. The invoice however states "three communal areas" which would mean this must have been for more than 1 block. This is a repair for Block 1 and not Block 3, therefore it is not part of these proceedings £0 £269.96 for light bulb changing is considered extortionate. This job is invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. This is a repair for Block 1 and not Block 3, therefore it is not part of these proceedings damaged roof (A416 - A417) - £90 net of credit 90.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of £150.00). [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to block 17- 23 without qualification. There is no flat or block referenced on the invoice. This is a repair for Block 2 and not Block 3, therefore it is not part of these proceedings £0 telephone call out - lights not working in communal area (A418) 216.00 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this equally between all blocks. The invoice does not identify a flat or block number. This is for the block 2-16 and was incorrectly charged to all the blocks. Allow £144 (2 hours work plus VAT). R's share 1/8 of 1/3 = £6 "Lights not working in communal area" cannot possibly be all blocks. Even in their bundle C spreadsheet, which they claim rectifies all previous mischarges, this split across all blocks is maintained by [NAME_12]. The call was made by flat 8 at 17:36 09/11/2012 (Friday)

£216.00 for simply receiving a call out, for which no action is documented, is considered extortionate, regardless of which block was involved. In the first instance the person on call had to spend some time on the phone to residents and the local energy supplier to try and ascertain if the issue was a supply problem or an issue with their lighting circuit. Once established that there is no problem with the supply, the person on call had to call a local electrician to attend, which meant phoning around various contractors to find one that can go that evening and then liaising with them whilst they were on site, this meant that we spent over two hours dealing with this call out. change 1 x fitting & lamp in communal area (A419 / A420) - £195.83 net of credit 195.83 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of £225.83). [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to block 1-15 without qualification. The invoice identifies no block or flat number. This is a repair for Block 1 and not Block 3, therefore it is not part of these proceedings £0 £225.83 is extortionate to change one bulb. Job invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. This is a repair for Block 1 and not Block 3, therefore it is not part of these proceedings OOH call out to communal light (A421) 233.99 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this to respondent's block 1-15 which matches the invoice. Incorrect - this is allocated to block 2-8 which is part of the respondents block. 4 (2 hours work plus VAT). R's share 1/8 o £233.99 for changing a light bulb is considered extortionate. Job invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. It is an out of hours responsive repairs call out made by a tenant. We have a duty to attend out of hours once reported for Health & Safety reasons for the safety of residents repairs to communal lights (A422) 77.34 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this two thirds to block 1-15 and one third to block 17-23. The invoice does refer to these 2 blocks, but does not contain sufficient detail to ascertain an accurate split of cost. This is for blocks 1 and 2 and not the respondents block 3, therefore not part of these proceedings has not been charged. £0 roof repairs, carpet tiles, framework (A423 / A424) - 1466.34 net of credit 1,466.34 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of £1856.34). [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this 50% each to blocks 17-23 and 18-24. The invoice does mention the respondent's block, amongst other blocks, but in their appeal submission [NAME_62] that there is insufficient information in their records to determine how this cost should be allocated, therefore they placed this cost against other blocks. This has not been charged to the respondents block as per some of the invoice states, therefore is not part of the proceedings, unless the respondent wants to pay a share that they were not invoiced for? £0 various decoration (A425 / A426) - £5459.23 net of credit 5,459.23 £ [NAME_52] 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th (of 5677.67). [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates an adjusted figure of £5459.24 equally between all blocks. Some, but not all blocks are identified on the [NAME_68] invoice, therefore this split is incorrect based on [NAME_52] own information. On the detailed analysis in bundle 3 there are parts of all blocks mentioned and the work is almost equal between the blocks therefore we feel the equal split is fair. £0 The invoice, particularly for such a large sum, is too vague to quantify whether these works are reasonably costed - e.g the component part "internal and external block decoration" £1255.40 The works have been carried out as per the invoice This work should have been subject to formal notice and consultation, as [NAME_52] figures state costs over £250 per leaseholder for this work. For example a £1255.40 decoration charge is listed for a block of 4 flats at [NAME_1]. This is incorrect as 24 flats x £250 (Section 20 threshold) = £6,000 but the total for this invoice was under this amount. TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE COST - 2012 Invoice list A302/A303 states a total of £17,586.61 but this list includes invoice 6936 (A175) which is from 2010. Invoice A175 is an internal repair from another block (1-15) and has already been charged in 2010. This duplicate charge for A175 has not been adjusted and remains charged to the respondent by [NAME_12]. Invoice 6936 (A175) was included in the repairs list for 2010 in error, it was accounted for in current your ( 2012). However this cost relates to block 1-15, it was not charged to the respondent and therefore is not part to this proceedings Total 837.58

Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (B2 + invoices B6 - B7) 360.60 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £15.01 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total (based on their 2017 figures). This particular year has a comparable charge to [NAME_25], allowing for inflation. [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] works out at £24.79 per property. Also, [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £879 per annum. The 2013 accounts were not independently certified until July 2015 (see [NAME_57] invoice B7). We question this delay. We also note that this invoice fails to correctly calculate [NAME_56]'s charge for this work, confusing the cost before and after VAT. We take it that the intended charge was actually £125+VAT to equal £150 total. The certification was carried out in 2014 and the cost was accruaed for in the year end account. The actual invoice was not sent until July 2015. Yes, you take it correctly. We note the address on [NAME_56]'s invoices is the same address as [NAME_13]. [NAME_57] was an [NAME_113] that worked from [NAME_51]'s offices but wasn’t employed by [NAME_51]. [NAME_62] in their submitted accounts that £360.60 was the actual expenditure for 2013 accountancy work (B2) but offer no supporting evidence or invoices to show how this total was calculated at the time. As per invoice list (B2) this includes accounting charge of £445, Certification Charge of £150 less a writte off of £235 relating to years prior to 2009 The only chargeable Items listed on page B2 under "Accountancy" are dated Jul-15 and do not total £360.60, so cannot be the relevant documents used to compile the 2013 accounts. This same section further lists a written off sum identidified as "accountancy previous agent -£235.00" which has no reference number and is undated. There is a further adjustment made in accrual of just £0.60 which is seemingly entered to make the July 2015 invoices total (minus the missing credit document) equal the £360.60 figure which was given in the 2013 accounts. The write off relates to a creditors balance brought forward from the previous managing agent. It does not require a credit note as we never had an invoice for it. [COMPANY_61] (B8-B19) 101.05 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £3.25 [NAME_46] (B20 - B23) 4,793.42 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £130.00 [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out [NAME_27] (B146) 1,440.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_27] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £60.00 Cleaning / [NAME_23] (B24 - B44) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £62 This equals £104 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison made to 2017 figure [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. Disputed Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2013 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Gardening tasks appear on the same invoices as [NAME_23] duties througout the year. An incorrect invoice description was used which included gardening tasks in error. [NAME_23] and gardening on this site was carried out by different people and invoiced separately. [NAME_69] (B105) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £80.52 [NAME_25]'s charge for gardening is comparable with this, based on [NAME_25]'s 2017 figures. It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. During 2013, [NAME_12] make no separate charge for gardening. This invoice is not presented until 1st MAY 2014 (see B105). This charge was accrued for in the year end accounts and the actual invoice was raised at a later date. [NAME_33] (B45 - B103) 549.28 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £14.25 [NAME_12] give 2 slightly different figures for the 2013 [NAME_33] total. Bundle A page 5 states £541, as does the income and expenditure account 2013 (B1), but the accompanying invoice list on [NAME_85] states 549.28. This is due to accruals and prepayments. When preparing accounts the first and the last invoice for the year is usually split between the years depending on the period that it covers. The payments listed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule shows what was the actual cost for this block. Fire Risk Assessment (B104) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 Health and Safety Risk Assessment (B104) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 [NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep- 18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (B106 - B117) 5,760.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £185.00 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £240 per flat per annum as opposed to £150 per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. Window Cleaning (B144) 1,296.00 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £15.75 This figure is higher than [NAME_12] themselves charge in subsequent years. Window cleaning is done and invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for.

[NAME_73] cupboards refurbed / replaced (B118) 987.08 £ respondent originally charged 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits this cost equally between all blocks. [NAME_52] redistribution of cost assumes the work required in each block was identical, which is highly unlikely, however there appears to be no way of knowing the actual split now, as [NAME_12] were managing the estate based on charging every leaseholder 1/24th of all costs in violation of the lease This clearly isnt the estate and therefore NOT in violation of the lease. It is an internal block repair and is not listed under part ii of schedule 8 of the lease. R's share = £40 This job was invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. A labour charge of £175 per day for 4 days is made. This rate is more than ample to employ a skilled carpenter, who we submit should not take 4 days to complete this job (a refurb of 6 medium sized cupboards of basic structure) The time period includes measuring up and procuring materials as well as painting the area and allowing for drying time. communal light out (B119) - [NAME_12] job No. [PHONE].00 £ Respondent originally charged 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now charges this solely to the respondent's block (flat 8). It was outside flat 8 so correctly invoiced when the detailed analysis of repairs happened and all blocks were split correctly. R's share = £18 Invoice does not describe any work actually being carried out, it just cites a £120 +VAT charge for attending. This charge seems to have been made solely for receiving a telephone call. This covers all the associated costs of running a 24hr emergency service and is in line with industry standards Ensuring communal lighting works is already charged as part of the [NAME_23] activities Not when we receive a call out of hours - we have a duty to make safe as a responsive repair for the residents safety. *Please see job directly below, which charges further for this same item OOH call out to communal light - replaced lamp & reset timer (B120) - [NAME_12] job no. [PHONE].99 £ As per line above, respondent originally charged 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now charges this solely to the respondent's block (flat 8). It was outside flat 8 so correctly invoiced when the detailed analysis of repairs happened and all blocks were split correctly. 44 (2 hours work plus VAT). R's share 1/8 Having already charged £144 for taking a phone call, [NAME_68] now charge £233.99 in house for changing one bulb and reseting a timer. In total [NAME_12] have themselves charged the respondent's block £377.99 to replace this single light bulb. This covers all the associated costs of running a 24hr emergency service and is in line with industry standards snow cleared - applied salt (B121) 67.20 £ Respondent originally charged 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. Correct - it was split between all 3 blocks 1/31 = £2.17 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This is correct and should have been applied to the estate cost as 1/31st internal leak reported at flat 23(B122) - job no. 001158 96.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent a 1/24th share of this maintenance cost. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to block 17- 23. Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings £0 [NAME_68] have invoiced £96.00 for simply receiving this phone call. No work is done for this, as further charges noted on the line below. Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings Furthermore, this references an issue internal to a private flat, and should not be charged to the estate, or any block. Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings internal washing machine leak at flat 23 - (B123) - ALSO job no. [PHONE].00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent a 1/24th share of this maintenance cost. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost to block 17- 23 Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings £0 A further £216.00 is invoiced in house by [NAME_68], but still no actually work is carried out by them, as this invoice states that the landlord is dealing with this problem Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings Again, this references an issue internal to a private flat, and should not be charged to the estate, or any block. Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings snow cleared - applied salt (B124) 84.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. Correct - it was split between all 3 blocks 1/31 = £2.71 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This is correct and should have been applied to the estate cost as 1/31st supplied & fit 6 x action and fire exit signs (B125) 235.80 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. This charge is correct as a repair on all 3 blocks and not the estate as per part ii of Schedule 8. The Tribunal allows £7.50 as R's share [NAME_68] have invoiced this job in house. Comparing there invoice figures to a simple Google search suggests they have marked up materials by more than double. I do not set the markup or charges, the work was carried out as per the invoice The invoice names the caretaker as the operative. We question why a quick and simple job like this would not just be done within his charged days, when already on site (or was it?) Repairs like this are not part of his [NAME_23] duties, they are outside of his [NAME_23] duties which he has a strict rota on every day/week. replaced lamp in communal area (B126) 17.99 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet places this cost at block 18- 24 but no block is referenced on the original invoice. Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings £0

[NAME_12] have marked up the cost of this lamp at over triple the cost that they are readily available. Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings fitted 6 x ash bins to walls outside block (B127) 360.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. This is a block repair and not estate so apportioned and charged correctly. 1/8 of 1/3 = £15 Job done in house by [NAME_68]. Material cost is roughly comparable to market costs. Labour is 3 hours at £35 per hour. This seems very excessive for fastening a few cigarette ash bins to walls. Job done by [NAME_68] caretaker so could this not be done during hours already charged (or was it?) Repairs like this are not part of his [NAME_23] duties, they are outside of his [NAME_23] duties which he has a strict rota on every day/week. If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This is a block repair and not estate so apportioned and charged correctly. communal lights - lamp replaced & timer reset (B128) 89.99 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. No block is referenced on the [NAME_68] invoice, yet their bundle C spreadsheet places this cost entirely against respondent's block. Block C was taken from the Job Sheet when the detailed repairs analysis was undertaken. £0 This activity is already charged for within [NAME_23] and £89.99 for changing a light bulb is highly excessive (both labour and bulb cost). Job invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. As previously stated, a responsive repairs call out is separate to [NAME_23] duties and it says call out on the invoice. We have a duty of care to leaseholders communal lighting - timer replaced (B129) 157.80 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. The bundle C spreadsheet allocates 1/3rd of the cost to the respondent's block. This is correct it was against all blocks and therefore and equal split between blocks 1,2 and 3. 1/8 of 1/4 = £5.00 According to [NAME_52] invoice and and bundle C spreadsheet, the timer was replaced in all 4 blocks at [NAME_1]. Therefore 1/4 should have been allocated to the respondent's block, not 1/3rd. Incorrect - see above - there are there billing block invoices snow cleared - applied salt (B130) 92.40 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. Correct - it was split between all 3 blocks 1/31 = £2.98 If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This is correct and should have been applied to the estate cost as 1/31st door closers fitted. Communal entrance framework repaired. 6 steps built outside block (B131) 1,293.57 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. This is correct it was against all blocks and therefore and equal split between blocks 1,2 and 3. 1/8 of 1/3 = £53.90 The [NAME_68] invoice for this makes no reference at all to any blocks, but does say a total of 6 steps were built. Given a total of 12 entrance steps exist at [NAME_1], [NAME_52] attempt to retrospectively reallocate this cost must be flawed. They have not worked on all steps, but have charged all Leaseholders an equal share regardless Will comment more at the hearing replaced broken washing line chord (B132) 46.80 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. Correct - it was split between all 3 blocks 1/31 = £1.50 As a communal estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This is correct and should have been applied to the estate cost as 1/31st door (2 to 8) front step (10 to 16) repainted gloss (B133) 103.50 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet reallocates this cost solely to the respondents block. This matches the flat numbers on the invoice. This is correct is clearly says the 2 blocks within block 2 on the invoice which matches up with the job description 1/8 = £12.94 £40 per hour labour for basic painting seems highly excessive - work invoiced by [NAME_68]. These market rates have been tested and are reasonable against the market OOH call out - communal lamp relaced (B134) 233.99 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet reallocates this cost solely to the respondents block. This appears to match the invoice. This is correct and also the job sheet matches this and was completed on the respondents block £18 £233.99 to replace one light bulb is considered extortionate - work invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. This was an out of hours call out which was made by the residents and we have to respond to for their safety. 12 notice boards fitted / "constructed" - 10 HOURS LABOUR CLAIMED!!! (B135) 387.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. This is correct - it was charged across all units as all communal areas 1/8 of 1/3 = £16.12 As observed by the Tribunal during the site visit of 8th August 2018, and referenced by respondent's counsel during the hearing, these notice boards appear to be standard "off the shelf" items like those purchased from a stationary shop. We fail to see how [NAME_12] can justify charging 10 hours labour at £21 per hour to screw them to the wall 12 boards were contructed and fixed to walls in communal areas. 2 boards per block of 4 flats (6 blocks in total). Material purchased: [NAME_101]. Labour time includes obtaining materials, contruction time and fixing to each block. lights out communal area (B136) 96.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent a 1/24th share of this maintenance cost. There is no flat or block listed on the invoice. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this solely to the respondent's block without any supporting evidence This is correct and was checked against the job sheet and therefore the invoice is correct against the respondents block. Imprecise £0 [NAME_68] have invoiced £96.00 for simply receiving this phone call. No work is done for this. This covers all the associated costs of running a 24hr emergency service and is in line with industry standards

lights out communal area (B137) 96.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent a 1/24th share of this maintenance cost. There is no flat or block listed on the invoice. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this solely to "block 1-7" without any supporting evidence Allocated to block 1 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings Imprecise £0 [NAME_68] have invoiced £96.00 for simply receiving this phone call. No work is done for this. Allocated to block 1 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings OOH call out communal? lights - adjusted and reset (B138) 216.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet holds this cost. The invoice does not specify a job number (which would tie it to a previous callout) or which block this light was in. [NAME_12] have charged this item to ALL blocks without explanation. This is for block 2-16. The problem was first reported by flat 14 on 21/08/2013, then again on 23/08/2013. The second time the timer was reset (looks like it was tampered with) Imprecise £0 £216.00 is extortionate for simple reset of a light. This job was invoiced in house by [NAME_68] This covers all the associated costs of running a 24hr emergency service and is in line with industry standards OOH communal lights call out - replaced lamp (B139) 233.99 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this cost solely to the respondent's block without any explanation. The [NAME_68] invoices does not specify a flat, block or job number to identify this. This was block 3 as per the operative's job sheet and therefore was allocated coorectly. Imprecise £0 £233.99 is extortionate for simple light bulb replacement. This job was invoiced in house by [NAME_68] This covers all the associated costs of running a 24hr emergency service and is in line with industry standards replaced lamp in communal area (B140) 35.98 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this cost solely to block 1-7 without any explanation. The [NAME_68] invoices does not specify a flat, block or job number to identify this. Allocated to block 1 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings £0 Materials (light bulbs) marked up at triple the cost they are readily available to the public Allocated to block 1 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings patched rendering (B141) 102.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this split 50% each to 2 other blocks (9-15 & 18-24). The [NAME_68] invoices does not specify a flat, block or job number to identify this. Allocated to blocks 1 and 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings £0 rehung aerial bracket (B142) 88.80 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this to block 18-24 which is the block referenced on the invoice. Allocated to block 2 and therefore not charged to block 3 and is not part of these proceedings £0 jetwash bins (B143) 43.81 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet maintains this split. This is correct as it was all bins at the development so all 3 blocks were charged. £0 Respondent queries whether or not this is chargeable under the Lease and, if so, is this not routine [NAME_23] (job done in house by [NAME_12]) We would argue that this is good estate maangement, bins can become a health and safety hazard if they are cleaned regularly If this is a legitimate estate cost, this should have been charged at 1/31st as per the lease This is incorrect as block repair and not estate (i.e. pathway etc) OOH call out to secure & replace front door - private flat / internal repairs (B145) - 1099.31 * B145 says reduced to £100 [NAME_27] excess charge 100.00 £ [NAME_52] 2013 demand charged the respondent 1/24th. This item is omitted entirely from [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet so presumably the original charge still stands against all leaseholders. The original invoice identifies flat 6 which is within the respondent's block Correct, this should have been charged only to block 2-16 and not split between all the blocks. 1/8 of 1/3 = £12.50 £ 45.00 There is a £45 listed on page B4 labelled "General Electrical" which claims to date from 2007. There is no supporting invoice. There is no reference to this item in the bundle C spreadsheet so presumably the item remains charged to the respondent. It's a write off to write off an old creditor which was brought forward from the previous managing agent. TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE COST - 2013 [NAME_62] £5,714.69 as the total. The £100 [NAME_27] excess is listed separately and in addition Total 818.82

Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (B151 - B153) 797.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £33.21 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total for all required accountancy work (based on their 2017 figures). [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] works out at £24.79 per property. Also, [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £879 per annum. Invoices listed under "accountants fee" on B148 and as provided in the bundles (B151, 152 & 153) total £651.40 yet in the submitted income and expenditure accounts (B147) the charge for accountants fee is £797. No explanation is provided. The total should be £651.40. An additional £145 was added during certification process, but it does not seem to correspond with anything. £145 will be credited in 2018 year end accounts. The £0.60 Accrual from the previous year does not appear to have accounted for, further suggesting it was a paper exercise to make incorrect invoice totals equal a previously submitted figure. No comment required [COMPANY_61] (B154 -B165) 122.92 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £3.96 [NAME_46] (B166 - B170) 5,669.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £137.00 [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out Cleaning / [NAME_23] (B171 - B190) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £62.40 This equals £104 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison made to 2017 figure [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. Gardening tasks appear on the same invoices as [NAME_23] duties until June 2014 (B182&183). An incorrect invoice description was used which included gardening tasks in error. [NAME_23] and gardening on this site was carried out by different people and invoiced separately. The invoice template was amended to reflect correct services which are being provided. [NAME_69] (B227 - B234) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £80.52 [NAME_25]'s charge for gardening is comparable with this, based on [NAME_25]'s 2017 figures. It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. Disputed Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2014 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

[NAME_33] (B191 - B225) 648.15 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £19.20 Fire Risk Assessment (B226) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 Health and Safety Risk Assessment (B226) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 [NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep- 18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (B235 - B246) 5,760.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £185.00 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £240 per flat per annum as opposed to £150 per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. Window Cleaning (B268-B272) 1,728.00 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £21.00 [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. [NAME_73] change lamp in communal area (B247) 123.90 £ Although listed on the invoice list (B150) and an invoice appearing (B247) in the bundles, this sum appears to be omitted from all of [NAME_52] calculations for 2014 charges. *See note below under TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE COST - 2014. This invoice was not charged to the leaseholders of [NAME_1] and wasn't accounted for in the year end accounts. It was incorectly included in the bundle and in the invoice list. £0 This invoice is to replace one lamp so must be for a specific block, but [NAME_52] records do not indicate which block N/A as per above. £123.90 to change one lamp is extremely high. This work was done in house by [NAME_68]. Irrelevant as not charged to the leaseholders painting decorating - appears internal to private flat (B248) 405.39 £ Again, although listed on the invoice list (B150) and an invoice appearing (B248) in the bundles, this sum appears to be omitted from all of [NAME_52] calculations for 2014 charges. *See note below under TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE COST - 2014. This invoice was not charged to the leaseholders of [NAME_1] and wasn't accounted for in the year end accounts. It was incorectly included in the bundle and in the invoice list. £0 This appears to be an internal repair on an unidentified property (no communal hallways are "painted internally with white emulsion") N/A as per above. replaced 1 broken slab on step (B249) 103.50 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] charge this to all blocks on their bundle C spreadsheet. The job is to repair one step, so must have been specific to one block, however [NAME_52] invoice fails to identify which. This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st 1/31 of £103.50 = £3.39

redressed 2 x steps (slabs) and rebedded (B250) 149.10 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. This job is to repair 2 steps, but [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet splits the cost across 3 blocks, including the respondent's block. [NAME_12], therefore, must be charging leaseholders for repairs on a block other than their own. This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st 1/31 of £149.10 = £4.81 call from [NAME_86] (flat 10 - TENANT) (B251) 329.99 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates the entire cost to the respondent's block This is correct, the tenant at flat 10 called out of hours requesting someone to go out to light not working - we attended to ensure the safety of the residents. Allow £144 (2 hours work plus VAT). R's share 1/8 = £18 £329.99 to change one light bulb is considered extortionate. The work is invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. This covers all the associated costs of running a 24hr emergency service and is in line with industry standards The Leaseholder of flat 10 has no knowledge of this call out. It says on the invocie that it was the tenant, we have to take instruction from whoever is at the site in these situations adjusted communal doors & fitted door stops (B252) 99.88 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet now allocates cost to block 9-15 only. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 5 x doors and locks adjusted / sanded (B253) 225.00 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th of £225.00, now adjusted to 1/8th of £56.25 on [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet. The respomdent's block is not referenced at all on the [NAME_68] invoice. This is incorrectly allocated £0 On the bundle C spreadsheet, [NAME_62] 2 doors flats 17 to 23, 2 doors flats 2 to 8 and 1 door flats 1 to 7. Inexplicably, it has then allocated half of this cost to block “1” i.e. they have charged block 1 half of the invoice for 2 doors. This cannot be correct. This is incorrectly allocated 22:12pm caller (un-named) reported lights out in communal area (B254) 312.00 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates the entire cost to the respondent's block, despite her block not being identified on the original invoice. This was checked on the job sheets and you can see on spreadsheet C it specifically identifies the respondents block as making the call Allow £144 (2 hours work plus VAT). R's share 1/8 = £18 £312 is invoiced for a works descripton which reads "All communal lighting checked, all working correctly". It appears no work was actually done. This covers all the associated costs of running a 24hr emergency service and is in line with industry standards water link to communal area ceiling - redecorated (B255) 217.50 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] C spreadsheet splits the charge 50% between 2 other blocks at [NAME_1], yet the works description suggests only one block was attended to. Works done in house by [NAME_68], but their invoice does not state which block this was. This was charged to block 1 and 2 and not block 3 therefore it is not part of these proceedings £0 padlocks fitted to roof hatch (B256) 109.49 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. The invoice states work carried out on block 9-15 only, but [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates the cost to block 17- 23. This was charged to block 2 and not block 3 therefore it is not part of these proceedings £0 2 x slabs on path levelled (B257) 109.50 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet continues to charge this job equally across all blocks. This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st 1/31 = £3.53 £35 per hour labour seems excessive. This job was invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. £35 per hour is reasonable for any service. If you called any tradesperson out of the yellow pages etc and asked for a quote you wouldn’t get cheaper than £35 per hour. fire safety document boxes fitted in each block (B258) 183.37 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet maintains to charge all blocks equally. one document box was fitted in each block so each block charged accordingly. This is correct. 1/8 of 1/3 of £183.37 = £7.64 £35 per hour labour seems excessive. This job was invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. Why not just done by caretaker as this seems compatible with his duties? £35 per hour is reasonable for any service. If you called any tradesperson out of the yellow pages etc and asked for a quote you wouldn’t get cheaper than £35 per hour. broken glass on BLOCK 28 - replaced and fitted new (B259) 136.50 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet now allocates cost entirely to respondent's block. Respondent has no recollection of this job (glass replacement) being in her block. No recollection does not mean the job was not complete in a communal area. The work was completed and invoiced correctly as per the job sheet. 1/8 of 1/3 of £136.50 = £5.69 underfelt in loft damaged (B260) 112.50 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th, despite the invoice stating block 9-15. Bundle C spreadsheet does now reallocate the cost entirely to block 9-15. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 flaunched 4 water taps (presumably covers) (B261) 156.43 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] maintain this proportion on their Bundle C spreadsheet This is correct 1/31 of £156.43 = £5.05 The respondent queries whether this job is the responsibility of the [NAME_87], given it is work on their assets. This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st If this is a genuine estate cost, the correct proportion under the Lease would be 1/31st, not 1/24th This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st designed and built fence area for green waste (B262) 546.37 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] maintain this proportion on their Bundle C spreadsheet No comment £1/31 of £546.37 = £17.62

As witnessed by the Tribunal during their site visit 8th August 2018, this facility is not being used. See, for example invoice B509 from 2016. It was being used at this time (5 years ago) [NAME_12] built and charged for this in house, without consulting the respondent. Consulation wasn’t needed for this at that time Invoice fails to specify what all the component costs are. The components were the wood and fixings If this is a genuine estate cost, the correct proportion under the Lease would be 1/31st, not 1/24th This is correct and should have been an estate cost emergency lighting not working (B263) 15.82 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] maintain this proportion on their Bundle C spreadsheet, despite the respondent's block not being referenced at all on this invoice. There was no emergency lighting installed in the respondent's block at this time, therefore [NAME_12] must still be charging her for work on another block. [NAME_51] this invoice £0 replaced faulty lighting timer (B264) 69.58 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] now allocate the entire cost to the respondent's block which does correlate with information on their invoice. This is correct - once the analysis was complete it was apporioned correctly to the respondents block 1/8 of £69.58 = £8.70 Why was this not just done by caretaker, as it seems compatible with his duties? This was outside of the day to day [NAME_23] duties which are time constrained by the duties they currently complete. It is a responsive repair lights out in communal area (B265) 339.58 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] now allocate the entire cost to another block (odds 1-15), however no block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 £339.58 is an extortionate sum for this work and the invoice contains no supporting information to justify such a high charge. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings 4 pan tiles moved back into position (B266) 45.00 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] now allocate the entire cost to another block (odds 1-15), however again no block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice. This was charged to block 1 and not block 3 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 inspection chamber too high - trip hazard - new lid fitted (B267) 212.87 £ 2014 demands bill the respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] maintain this proportion on their Bundle C spreadsheet This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st 1/31 of £212.87 = £6.87 £35 per hour labour seems excessive. This job was invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st If this is a genuine estate cost, the correct proportion under the Lease would be 1/31st, not 1/24th This is an estate repair and should have been charged to the estate as 1/31st TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE COST - 2014 [NAME_62] consistently in the bundles that the above repairs total £3474. This figure is given on the summary, bundle A page 5, the 2014 income and expenditure (B147) and the supporting invoice list (B150). The actual total of the above repairs, as listed on B150, is £4,003.27. There is no apparent explanation for this discrepancy. Two invoices were included in the bundle in error, they were not accounted for in the year end accounts and therefore irrelevant to these proceedings. £4003.27-123.90-405.39= 3473.98 Total 657.07

Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (B279 - B280) 596.20 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £24.84 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total for all required accountancy work (based on their 2017 figures). [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] works out at £24.79 per property. Also, [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £879 per annum. The Invoice supplied B280 from [NAME_102] appears to relate to an estate other than [NAME_1] ( "[ADDRESS]" ). Due to an admin error an incorrect invoice was included in the bundle. Enclosed is an invoice for [NAME_1]. The amounts are the same. [COMPANY_61] (B281 - 292) 100.65 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £3.24 [NAME_46] (B293 - B295) 5,895.89 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £145.00 [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out Cleaning / [NAME_23] (B296 - B307) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £78.00 This equals £104 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison made to 2017 figure [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. [NAME_69] (B352 - B363) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £80.52 Per annum breakdown comparable with [NAME_25] rates It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. [NAME_33] (B308 - B350) 594.33 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £15.13 Fire Risk Assessment (B351) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 Disputed Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2015 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Health and Safety Risk Assessment (B351) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 [NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep-18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (B364 - B375) 5,760.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £185.80 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £240 per flat per annum as opposed to £150 per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. [NAME_88] (B400-B411) 560.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. This is an internal work and therefore relates the first schedule. The charge is per flat therefore is correct. £23.33 In their bundles, [NAME_12] invoiced for this activity from January 2015 across the estate, despite there being no emergency lighting in the respondent's block until August 2015. Emergency lighting was installed in this block in 2011 as per [COMPANY_89] invoice, however no [NAME_88] was carried out until August 2015 when the rest of the blocks got their emergency lights installed, therefore block 2 - 16 should have been charged only from August 2015. A charge per year is £30 including VAT per unit, therefore it should be £12.50 per flat or £100 for block 2-16 As pointed out to the Tribunal, on their site visit Aug-18, no test switch is installed in the respondent's block They are installed in the connected block, the switches operate the lighting in both blocks [NAME_12] claimed in their submissions, following the Hearing, that emergency lighting was installed in the respondent's block during 2011, submitting an amended invoice from 2011 to substantiate this claim No query here The Tribunal correctly determined (decision paragraph 47) that [NAME_52] claim of a 2011 installation was not accurate, stating "such demands for payment were incompetent at best and misleading at worst" The instalation was carried out in 2011 as per the supplier invoice, however the work for all for blocks was compeleted in August 2015 In their appeal, [NAME_12] reference decision paragraph 47 and now accept that these invoices "should not have been charged to the respondent" and that their charges should be reduced accordingly. The [NAME_88] is carried out on a monthly basis since August 2015 During site inspection for Hearing, [NAME_97] claimed that the caretaker does this test (although obviously he could not have tested equipement that did not exist) The [NAME_88] is carried out on a monthly basis since August 2015 Given all the above, there should be no additional charge for this activity The charge for the block should be £100 or £12.50 per unit to cover period August to December 2015 Window Cleaning (B412-B417) 1,296.00 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £15.75

[NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. Land Registry Fee (B419) 9.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share. If the Tribunal rules this item is chargeable to the estate as a whole, the respondent's share is 1/31st under the lease, however searches are not relating to respondents block (all flats named are in other blocks) therefore she does not believe any charge should be applicable. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £0 [NAME_73] fix light block 18-24 (B377) 53.76 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th, despite this being identified as work on another block (18-24). In their bundle C spreadsheet [NAME_12] misallocate this cost again, placing 50% of the charge against block 17-23 which is separate from 18-24. Again this is incorrect. You can see on spreadsheet C that the whole charge was put against the correc block (2). The fact is that block 2 includes 17-23 & 18- 24 within its block as per the 1/8th of the lease. £0 replace lamp (B378) 329.99 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. In different section of their bundles, [NAME_12] relate this single light bulb replacement to 3 different blocks. The invoice B378 references the respondent's block yet the bundle C spreadsheet places the cost equally against 2 other separate blocks (17-23 and 18- 24). This was charged to block 2 and not the respondents block so therefore should not be part of these proceedings £0 £329.99 is extortiantely high for a bulb replacement, even if out of hours (which the invoice does not specify) This was charged to block 2 and not the respondents block so therefore should not be part of these proceedings stop cock covers causing trip hazard (B379) 63.00 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet upholds this charge by allocating cost to whole estate. Block not identified. This would appear to be an estate repair and charged as 1/31st 1/31 of £63 = £2.03 If this is a genuine estate cost, the correct proportion under the Lease would be 1/31st, not 1/24th This would appear to be an estate repair and charged as 1/31st all stair noses repainted (B380) 110.03 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet upholds this charge by allocating cost to whole estate. This charge is correct. It clearly states ALL stair noses in all blocks but the repair is a block repair and internal and not an estate repair as per part ii of shcedule 8. 1/8 of 1/3 of £110.03 = £4.58 2 ridge, 3 pan tiles replaced (B381) 113.70 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet reallocates the entire cost to the respondent's block. Invoice B381 does say this work (listed as done in house by [NAME_68]) was above flat 12 which is in the respondent's block, however the leaseholder of flat 12 is not aware of this work. There is no works date on the invoice. This invoice was charged correctly. [NAME_51] would submit that roof works or any other communal works are not necessarily known to leaseholders as they are communal on the block. We manage the communal areas for the freeholder of the land and complete any necessary works. 1/8 of £113.70 = £14.21 extensive roof repairs flat 4 (B382 & 383 ) 1,505.09 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. In bundle C spreadsheet, [NAME_12] allocate the whole cost to the respondent's block, citing flat 4. The spreadsheet also states, however, that this was for "block 1" which is not the respondent's block. It clearly states flats 4 and 8 on the works invoice and this has been checked against the job sheets. 1/8 of £1505.09 = £188.14 *Please cross reference with invoice bundle B 564. [NAME_12] have done this work in house, charging high hourly labour rates and claim the job is "left in working order" on their invoice. The following year, however, they charge a similar amount again (B564) to rectify leaks to this work. The respondent does not feel it is reasonable to charge any leaseholder twice for the same works, particularly when [NAME_12] themselves carried out the work. Once repair was completed in January 2015 and another in July 2016 (18 months apart). Different parts of the roof can wear, especially if it is an old roof. Labour is £35 per hour and is not excessive. You could not get a roofing contractor for less than this rate. emergency lighting failed 3 hour drop test - (B384) 92.86 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this solely to "block 1" so presumably [NAME_12] now agree this is not chargeable to the [NAME_92], who had no emergency lighting at this time (April 2015) This was charged to block 1 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 UPVC barge board cladding (B385) 353.05 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. The invoice gives no indication whatsoever as to which block was invloved. Bundle C spreadsheet reallocates the cost to "block 1" (odds 1-15) without any supporting evidence. As mentioned previously the evidence is that ALL job sheets were pulled when completing the excersise for the repairs analysis. It has been charged to block 1 and therefore not part of the proceedings £0

8 hours labour at £35 per hour seems excessive for this work, which was done in house by [NAME_68]. As mentioned previously the evidence is that ALL job sheets were pulled when completing the excersise for the repairs analysis. It has been charged to block 1 and therefore not part of the proceedings rebedded block steps (B386) 132.25 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. The invoice (B386) claims that 8 block steps of the 12 present at [NAME_1] were attended to. Without any supporting evidence or comments, [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet allocates 50% of this cost to the respondent's block and 50% to "block 1" (odds 1-15). Neither of these blocks are referenced on the supporting invoice (B386) This was charged to block 1 and 2 and therefore not part of these proceedings as the respondent has not been charged £0 removed 11 old rusty washing poles (B387) 510.45 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet upholds this charge. This was completed across all 3 blocks. [NAME_51] submit that they will leave it to the Tribunal Panel to determine if this is an estate or a block repair 1/31 of £510.45 = £16.47 If this is a genuine estate cost, the correct proportion under the Lease would be 1/31st, not 1/24th This was completed across all 3 blocks. [NAME_51] submit that they will leave it to the Tribunal Panel to determine if this is an estate or a block repair brown mortar holes painted over (B388) 206.03 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet splts this cost equally between 2 other separate blocks at [NAME_1] (odds 17-23 & evens 18-24). There is no evidence in the bundle or spreadsheet to support this. This is charged to block 2 and not the respondents block and therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 £40 per hour for basic painting seems a very high labour charge rate. 3.5 hours charged seems more than ample time based on the works description. This work was done in house by [NAME_68]. This is charged to block 2 and not the respondents block and therefore is not part of these proceedings scaffolding roof repairs (B389) 456.69 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. The bundle C spreadsheet allocates this cost now to another block (odds 9-15) which is consistent with the original invoice. This is charged to block 1 and not the respondents block and therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 communal block ceiling painted to cover water stains (B390) 290.93 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. There is nothing on the invoice to identify which block this work was for. In their bundle C spreadsheet [NAME_12] now label this "block 2" but then proceed to split the cost 50% between 2 separate blocks (odds 17- 23 & evens 18-24) This is charged to block 2 and not the respondents block and therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 tree from our grounds to council path trimmed (B391) 42.00 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet upholds this. This is an estate repair and should be charged at 1/31st 1/31 of £42 = £1.35 If this is a genuine estate cost, the correct proportion under the Lease would be 1/31st, not 1/24th This is an estate repair and should be charged at 1/31st This appears to be routine garden maintenance which should be covered under the separate gardening charge. This work was invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. Sometimes extra work is required outside of the normal schedule, if the works take longer then we have to submitt an additional invoice emergency lighting installation (B391a & 392) 2,037.51 £ This is a duplicated charge which [NAME_12] claim to have credited in full during June 2016 (see B548 & B549). This invoice was credited in full in 2016 (B548 &549) and reisued for a reduced amount of £1902.51 (B546&547). What is the query here? £0 (see 2016) communal light 9 to 15 not working (B393) 63.36 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. The cost has been allocated to another block (odds 1-15) in [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet which matches the invoice. This is charged to block 1 and not the respondents block and therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 credit (B394) 84.00 -£ This credit has been applied across the whole estate. The credit note cancels out a charge from 2012. No comment £0 check condition of grounds (B395) 84.00 -£ This credit has been applied across the whole estate. The credit note cancels out a charge from 2012. No comment £0 painted rendering / insulation holes (B396) 164.99 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet now allocates this cost solely to the respondent's block without any qualifying evidence. This is the same work as related to invoice B388. No comment 1/8 of £164.99 = £20.62 £40 per hour for basic painting seems a very high labour charge rate. 2.5 hours charged seems more than ample time based on the works description. It was simply to paint over a few mortar holes after cavity insulation and is additional to that already charged (B388). This work was done in house by [NAME_68]. This is our maintenance rate and is in line with industry standards

Credit note - references invoice 5375? (B397) 329.00 -£ This is a partial credit for invoice 5375 (A 362) which is a £482.91 invoice of which the respondent was charged 1/24th. The job was an internal repair issue to an unidentified flat, so the respondent should not have been charged. The respondent remains charged, at a lesser figure, despite various attempted adjustments. £0 Credit 30937 re A361? Not specified on credit note (B398) 82.25 -£ 2012 demands charged respondent 1/24th of A361. Now credited back to whole estate. No comment £0 investigate tripping out on lighting circuit (B399) 65.00 £ 2015 demands charged the respondent 1/24th. Bundle C spreadsheet upholds this charge, splitting the cost across ALL blocks. The invoice (B399) does not specifiy which block this relates to, but the works description is for one specific lighting circuit, showing the job was confined to one block, but has been charged to all blocks. Will comment more at the hearing Insufficiently clear £0 £100 excess charge on graffiti damage (B418) 100.00 £ 2015 demands charge the respondent 1/24th. The works do relate solely to the respondent's block. The invoice is not included in [NAME_52] bundle C spreadsheet so presumably remains misallocated. Correct - this was an error and not included in spreadsheet - therefore this needs re-allocating and charging solely to the respondents block 1/8 of £100 = £12.50 Arrears admin charges (listed on A8 & A9) - Invoices not included in bundles [NAME_12] 431 50.00 £ Invoice not included in bundles. Applied unfairly. The respondent's account was not in arrears, she had disputed service charges in writing The account was in arrears and the disputed items were explained to the respondent on numerous occasions over the years. The admin charge was applied correctly. A copy of the demand is enclosed £0 [NAME_12] 438 50.00 £ Invoice not included in bundles. Applied unfairly. The respondent's account was not in arrears, she had disputed service charges in writing Same as above £0 Total 846.99

NB!! REGARDING 2016 MAINTENANCE CHARGES - Invoice list bundle A page 6 identifies the respondent's block as liable for a total of £2642.68 for repairs and general maintenace in 2016. When divided by 8 , this equals £330.34. This figure minus the original budget for maintenance (£166.67) results in a difference of £163.67, as shown on balancing charge invoice A58. The invoice lists on [NAME_93], however, contains a completely different split in the breakdown of the same costs, stating the respondent's block incurred £308.83 of maintenance costs for this year. The [NAME_93] figure, if divided by 8 would equal £38.60 for block specific maintenance. Neither of these two differing figures given by [NAME_12] match the £166.67 charged as 1/24th of £4,000 which is what they demanded, as shown in the 2016 budget, included in their 18th September 2018 submissions on page 9. [NAME_12] in their appeal, dated 16th February 2019, that a spreadsheet exists which shows the adjustments made in the 2016 accounts but this was not included in the bundles and has never been supplied. In the absence of a clear or consistent narrative as to what [NAME_12] claim they are entitled to charge, the respondent has commented on such discrepancies as best she can idenitfy them. The respondent also queries why so many credits were issued on 14th January 2016, often relating to invoices issued up to four years previously against which balancing charges had already been demanded. Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (B425 - B426) 545.80 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £22.74 [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total (based on their 2017 figures) [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] works out at £24.79 per property. Also, [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £879 per annum. [COMPANY_61] (B427 - B438) 13.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £0.41 two conflicting amounts offered by [NAME_12]. £13 is given on the 2016 summary (A6) on the income and expenditure total on page B420. The invoice list on [NAME_93] lists invoices and credits totalling £20.64 £13 is a correct charge. One of the bank credits was omitted from the invoice list hence the difference. [NAME_46] (B439-B440) 6,195.19 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £154.00 [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. *comparisons are based on 2017 figures [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out Cleaning / [NAME_23] (B441 - B452) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £78 This equals £104 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. *comparison made to 2017 figure [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. [NAME_69] (B508 - B519) 3,504.29 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £113.04 Disputed Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2016 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011 Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE]

Per annum breakdown of [NAME_52] standard monthly grounds keeping invoices is comparable with [NAME_25] rates. The following items are charged separately, over and above the usual annual charge. It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. The £600 charge listed on B423 ([COMPANY_95] - ref 8506) has no supporting invoice, or other evidence, in the bundles. Invoice included - apologies that this was originally omitted. A £186 charge (B521) is made for tree stump work. Given the missing invoice above, we are unable to quantify the validity of this (IF it is at all related?) See above A £79.50 charge (B509) is made for what appears to be works which are covered in the monthly gardening charge list (pruning to ensure pathways clear). [NAME_12] charge the estate for removal of green waste, despite having built a dedicated area to house green waste (B262). As previous regarding additional works required on gardening A £70.79 charge (B520) is made for removing excess sand? This appear's to be [NAME_52] own materials which they have stored on site? We query its purpose and this charge. Sand is not a compostable item and needs to be removed from site Correct proportion of respondent's share not identified. If the Tribunal agree any of the above are a legitimate cost on the whole estate, then the share payable under the Lease would be 1/31st Agreed - these would be estate works under the terms of the lease [NAME_33] (B459-B494) 709.01 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8 share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £18.63 Fire Risk Assessment (B507) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 Health and Safety Risk Assessment (B507) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 [NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. *comparison made to 2017 figure Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep-18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (B526 - B537) 5,760.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £185.80 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge £240 per flat per annum as opposed to £150 per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. [NAME_88] (B495-B506) 720.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. This is correct as it is a block repair and not an estate repair £30.00 As pointed out to the Tribunal, on their site visit Aug-18, no test switch is installed in the respondent's block as previous, it is in the adjacent block Invoices B441 to B452 (labelled "cleaning/[NAME_23]") includes the task "ensure all lighting is operating correctly" and were alarms installed in the block, this charge includes their inspection. Caretakers do test the lighting monthly. This charge is for the annual 3 hour drop test that is completed on site. This has to be completed by a trained professional employee During site inspection for Hearing, [NAME_97] claimed that the caretaker does this test. Caretakers do test the lighting monthly. This charge is for the annual 3 hour drop test that is completed on site. This has to be completed by a trained professional employee Given all the above, there should be no additional charge for this activity Caretakers do test the lighting monthly. This charge is for the annual 3 hour drop test that is completed on site. This has to be completed by a trained professional employee

Window Cleaning (B453-B458) 1,296.00 £ As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. £15.75 [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. Land Registry Fee (B523 - B525) 9.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. This is correct and is not an estate repair listed under part ii of Schedule 8 Contains items not relating to respondents block (2 of the 3 charges are for flat 17 which is in a different block). Flat 16 is in the respondent's block. £6 were charged to all blocks incorrectly [NAME_73] see note at top of page. replace lamps 1-7, 17-23 comp 6/11/15 (B538) 30.48 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. Neither of the blocks listed on the invoice are the respondent's block. These have not been charged to the respondents block and therefore are not part of the proceedings £0 faulty emergency light fitting - fitted and tested? (B539) 103.87 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. No block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice This was charged to block 2 and therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 As this fault occurred in an installation just 12 moths old, that was carried out by [NAME_12] themselves, this work should not carry a cost to which ever block it was for. This was charged to block 2 and therefore is not part of these proceedings Four parking signs placed on car park (B540) 67.20 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. Correct - this is an estate repair and should be apportioned as 1/31st 1/31 of £67.20 = £2.17 Correct proportion of respondent's share not identified. If the Tribunal agree this is a legitimate cost on the whole estate, then the share payable under the Lease would be 1/31st Correct - this is an estate repair and should be apportioned as 1/31st lamps replaced communal area (B541) 17.39 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. According to [NAME_52] invoice the cost relates entirely to another block (18-24) This was charged to block 2 and therefore is not part of these proceedings £0 no parking signs (B542) 177.76 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This was an estate repair and has been split equally across all blocks 1/31 of £177.76 = £5.73 £35 per hour seems high for this type of work . 4 hours also seems excessive time to position 4 small parking signs in soft ground. This was done in house by [NAME_68]. [NAME_51] labour is set at £35 per hour across all trades and is a fair market [NAME_15]. Correct proportion of respondent's share not identified. If the Tribunal agree this is a legitimate cost on the whole estate, then the share payable under the Lease would be 1/31st Correct - this should be apportioned as 1/31st timer reset (B543) 42.00 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This clearly states timers checked on all blocks, therefore the repairs split is between all 3 blocks. £0 Duplicate charge - this activity is covered and invoiced for separately under [NAME_23] testing is on [NAME_23] duties - anything outside of this is chargable replace lamps in communal area (B544) 17.39 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. No block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice 1/8 of £17.39 = £2.17 Duplicate charge - this activity is covered and invoiced for separately under [NAME_23] Not if we receive a telephone call regarding a light repair outside of the [NAME_23] duties we have a duty to respond and repair a light. no parking signs missing - replaced? (B545) 19.80 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. Duplication of other parking sign charges above This was an estate repair and has been split equally across all blocks. It's not a duplicated charge. 1/31 of £19.80 = £0.64 This appears to be a re-work / fix of [NAME_52] invoice above (B542) The sign was missing in front of block 2- 16, therefore a new one had to be installed. This work is not related to invoice 32127 (B542) as the work was carried out a few months earlier. Correct proportion of respondent's share not identified. If the Tribunal agree this is a legitimate cost on the whole estate, then the share payable under the Lease would be 1/31st This would be an estate repair and charged at 1/31st emergency lighting installation (B546 & 547) 1,902.51 £ Respondent charged £84.58 (bundle A page 59) which equals just over 1/22nd of this charge. This does not represent any version of the per-flat charges used by [NAME_12] (1/20 or 1/24) or the 1/31st specified in the lease. We have no explanation for this, despite various queries. The demand was raised based on a quote and it was equally split between all the flats. The total quoted was £2030. A detailed explanation to the respondent's queries was provided in a letter sent to respondent on 07/09/2015. A copy is enclosed. 1/8 of 1/3 of £1902.51 = £79.27

At the previous hearing 8th August 2018, the Tribunal directed [NAME_12] to confirm the cost of installing emergency lighting in the respondent's block. [NAME_13] not only failed to comply, but attempted to claim emergency lighting had been installed in 2011. as previously stated the lighting was installed credit of above emergency lighting (B548 & 549) 2,037.51 -£ issued against invoice 29238 (B391a to B392). This credit was issued because [NAME_12] had raised a duplicate invoice (391a & 392). Invoice 29238 (B391a to B392)was credited in full and reinvoiced for a slightly smaller amount of £1902.51 £0 Investigate roof (B550) 348.00 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. No block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice From 2016 onwards (spreadsheet in bundle C) ALL repairs have been split to the correct block and the I & E at the year end reflects this. Imprecise £0 £348 is invoiced in house by [NAME_68], however it appears no actual work was carried out. It is a call out and work was completed to make safe the roof. On the job sheet it identifies: stripped section of affected roof and reinstated lathe and felt and replaced pan tiles Investigate roof (B551) 348.00 £ appears to be duplicate of line above - credited 36398 (B555) Correct, the invoice was raised twice hence the credit note Imprecise £0 corridor light reported not working - installed new fitting (B552) 69.73 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. Invoice states this is within the respondent's block This is correct and has been charged to the correct block (3) 1/8 of £69.73 = £8.71 front entrance paint flaking - sanded and glossed (B553) 74.69 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. No block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice This repair was for block 2-16 (door for 2-8) but was charged to all blocks so this needs re-allocating to block 3 only. Imprecise £0 damp issue reported - checked drains fitted new connector (B554) 258.19 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. No block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice This was an estate repair and split across all blocks 1/31 of £258.19 = £8.33 credit 36398 - 34403 (B555) 348.00 -£ see B551 above No comment required blocked gutters - inspected unblocked (B556) 189.00 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. No block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice This is a gutter inspection on all 3 blocks and was therefore split correctly between all 3 blocks and is not an estate repair but a block repair. 1/24 = £7.88 supplied door matts, lining (B557) 215.50 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. No block at all is identified on [NAME_52] invoice This invoice relates to block 3 and was incorrectly charged to the estate. 1/8 of 1/3 of £215.40 = £8.98 3.5 hours at £35 per hour billed in house by [NAME_68] for sticking down 4 door matts seems excessive (both hours and rate) Labour includes visit to the site, checking what is required, going to B&Q (approx 15min one way) to purchase the materials and returning to the site to install the mats using the adhesive. relayed 8m of slabs with slabs already on site (B558) 491.71 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This was an estate pathway repair and should have been charged as 1/31st 1/31 of £491.71 = £15.86 The invoice does not clearly quantify all elements of this charge. [NAME_12] charged £335 Labour (in house) for relaying a few existing slabs? This seems expensive if so. 8 sq meters of paving lifted, tree roots removed and slabs re-layed straight and level. Labour - two men one day job. Materials: sand and cement as detailed on the invoice Correct proportion of respondent's share not identified. If the Tribunal agree this is a legitimate cost on the whole estate, then the share payable under the Lease would be 1/31st This was an estate pathway repair and should have been charged as 1/31st replaced 4 door matts (brush type) (B559) 176.57 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. Block 1-15 identified on [NAME_52] invoice This has been charged to block 1 and therefore not part of these proceedings £0 2.5 hours at £35 per hour billed in house by [NAME_68] for sticking down (we think 4?) door matts seems excessive (both hours and rate) This has been charged to block 1 and therefore not part of these proceedings replaced 2 door matts (brush type) (B560) 230.24 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. Blocks 18- 24 and 17-23 (which are 2 spearate blocks) are identified on [NAME_52] invoice This has been charged to block 2 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 4 hours at £35 per hour billed in house by [NAME_68] for sticking down) door matts seems excessive (both hours and rate) This has been charged to block 2 and is therefore not part of these proceedings internal repair - flat window work (B561) 150.00 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This has been charged to block 1 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 This is an internal repair, identified as being flat 15 - not the respondent's block. This has been charged to block 1 and is therefore not part of these proceedings replace latch on communal door handle (B562) 37.50 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This has been charged to block 1 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 NB - It is important to remember that demands are an estimate for repairs as a total for the mansions. This will be analysed and split accordingly at year end This is identified as block 9-15 - not the respondent's block This has been charged to block 1 and is therefore not part of these proceedings 1 ridge tile reset on roof (B563) 146.07 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This has been charged to block 2 and is therefore not part of these proceedings £0 This is identified as block 18-24 - not the respondent's block This has been charged to block 2 and is therefore not part of these proceedings

£35 per hour for 3 hours invoiced in house by [NAME_68]. This seems excessive for reseting 1 tile with cement This has been charged to block 2 and is therefore not part of these proceedings Re-work to an earlier roof repair (B564) 1,341.18 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This has been charged to block 3 and it has been charged to the respondents block correctly. Allow £1000. 1/8 of £1000 = £125 This work is identified on the [NAME_68] invoice as being for flat 4, which is part of the respondent's block Flat 4 IS PART of the respondents block. Please see previous comments on the make up of the 3 blocks as per the lease. Please cross reference with invoice B382 & B383. [NAME_68] charged a similar amount against the respondent's block the previous year for roofing works at flat 4. Their invoice claims to have remedied the problem - "left in working order". The respondent would not expect therefore to endure a repeat cost of this work in so short a time. We have attended a number of different areas on the same roof over the period of management, we cannot afford to strip the whole roof and tackle the problem as a whole so we deal with the patch repairs as they come up. ridge tile 10 - 16 rebedded with resin (B565) 128.83 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This has been charged to block 3 and it has been charged to the respondents block correctly. 1/8 of £128.83 = £16.10 This work is listed as "10-16" in the [NAME_68] invoice. This does refer to the respondent's block. This has been charged to block 3 and it has been charged to the respondents block correctly. 2.5 hours at £35 per hour seems excessive to replace just one tile. This job was done by [NAME_68] This time will include errecting small scaffolding tower to comply with health and safety regulations and the take down of the ladder plus fixing and collecting the tile internal damp issue (B566) 180.00 £ 2016 demands charged Respondent 1/24th. [NAME_12] have not provided a correcting spreadsheet. This has been charged to block 3 and it has been charged to the respondents block correctly. 1/8 of £180 = £22.50 This invoice from [NAME_68] references flat 6 which is in the respondent's block This has been charged to block 3 and it has been charged to the respondents block correctly. No work was actually done. [NAME_68] have invoiced 2.5 hours at £60 per hour for simply investigating a problem This was for tracing a leak This arises from internal repair issues so we question how a cost has been levied on the service charge, particularly given no action was taken It would have fell below the [NAME_27] excess, the leaseholder would have been able to claim on the [NAME_46] however the cost was too small Arrears admin charges (listed on A8 & A9) - Invoices not included in bundles Copies enclosed [NAME_12] 604 50.00 £ Invoice not included in bundles. Applied unfairly. The respondent's account was not in arrears, she had disputed service charges in writing A copy of the demand enclosed. The dispute was replied to by [NAME_51] on 15/01/2016 and the respondent was given until 22/01/2016 to settle the arrears. As the settlement was not received, the arrears were chased again on 28/01/2016 and this time incurred an admin charge for none payment. The charge was applied correctly and is payable. £0 Total 937.19

Property: Flat 14 [NAME_1], Gospel Oak, Tipton, [POSTCODE] NB!! - The 14 [NAME_1] Summary in bundle A (page 6) lists the 2017 Service Charge budget calculation figures for each item of expenditure. The money the Applicant seeks to recover for 2017 is the entirity of the budgeted service charge (see service charge invoices A48/A49). Actual expenditure invoices are to be found in bundle C, supplied to the Tribunal and the Respondent at the commencement of the original hearing on 08/08/2018 but, to date (25/06/2019), the Applicant has issued no balancing charge invoice/credit to correct any discrepancy or difference. Therefore below, the respondent comments not just on the amount of money [NAME_12] have demanded, but on actual expenditure incurred according to bundle C. Item / Bundle Page Reference Cost Respondent's Comments Applicant's Comments Tribunal Decision Accountants Fee (C43 - C45 inclusive) 596.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_50] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 and are in fact explicitly listed under part i Schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £25.37 As declared in bundle C page 37 and C38, actual expenditure in accounts is £608.80. Difference not adjusted, as noted above. Balancing credit was not issued due to ongoing proceedings [NAME_25] pay £450 per annum as total (based on their 2017 figures) [NAME_25] works out at £32.14 per property for [NAME_50] & [NAME_51] (including certification) works out at £27.29 per property. Also, [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £879 per annum. [COMPANY_61] (C45A - C45D) 85.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [COMPANY_61] do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18- 19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £2.74 As declared in bundle C page 37 and C38, actual expenditure in accounts is £39.79. Difference not adjusted, as noted above. Balancing credit was not issued due to ongoing proceedings [NAME_46] (C46 - C48) 6,500.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. [NAME_46] does not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease and is in fact explicitly listed under part i of schedule 8(pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £163.00 As declared in bundle C page 37 and C38, actual expenditure in accounts is £5.958.61. On C38 (bottom right) [NAME_12] offer a third figure for 2017 [NAME_27] of £1,420.76, which appears to be a calculation error. Difference not adjusted, as noted above. [NAME_27] premium for the year was lower than the budgeted one [NAME_27] is significantly higher than market rates. The figure includes commission. Neighbouring blocks (not managed by [NAME_12]) pay around 1/4 this figure. [NAME_25] pay £85.71 per flat per annum and block 18 - 24 [NAME_1] ( via their RTM ) pay £57 per flat per annum. [NAME_112] see "[NAME_27]" tab for an inflation adjusted per unit comparable figure for [NAME_46]. [NAME_112] is no history of any significant or excessive claims on the [NAME_27] at [NAME_1] identified in the Applicant's bundles. Please see the [NAME_27] excess print out Cleaning Communal Areas (C49-C60 inclusive) 2,496.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18-19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £78.00 This equals £104 per flat per annum. [NAME_25] (managed by [NAME_63]) pay £42.86 per flat per annum for communal cleaning. [NAME_66] ([NAME_67]) pay £9,839 for cleaning and [NAME_23] services which equates to £234 per annum per flat which is significantly higher than [NAME_51]. It is also worth noting [NAME_51] is a cleaning and [NAME_23] service not cleaning only, therefore we complete changing of light bulbs if required and other "odd jobs" and not just cleaning like [NAME_63] offer in the comparison. [NAME_69] (C123-134) 2,568.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. In the annual accounts for all years, [NAME_70] was charged equally between 24 leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases, this has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder (1/31st) are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_70] schedule. £82.84 Per annum breakdown comparable with [NAME_25] rates It is NOT comparable as [NAME_98] works out at £128.57 per property & [NAME_51] works out at £88.25 on a 24 split or £68 on a 31st split, therefore this is almost double on the estate costs. Disputed Service Charges S/C Year Ended 31/12/2017 Case Reference: BIR/OOCS/LIS/2018/0011

[NAME_33] (C61 - C121) 600.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share of all blocks on estate, should be 1/8th share of metered supply to own block In the annual accounts for all years, all electrcity invoices were charged equally between all leaseholders. As per the terms of the leases. This has now been recalculated and the correct charges for each leaseholder in the block 2 - 16 are detailed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule. £23.88 As declared in bundle C page 37 and C39, actual expenditure in accounts is £486. Difference not adjusted, as noted above. This is due to accruals and prepayments. When preparing accounts the first and the last invoice for the year is usually split between the years depending on the period that it covers. The payments listed on the enclosed [NAME_33] schedule shows what was the actual cost for this block. Fire Risk Assessment (C122) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18- 19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 Health and Safety Risk Assessment (C122) 240.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Risk Assessments do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18- 19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £7.74 [NAME_25] pay £135 per annum to include all risk assessment activity, as opposed to the £480 total charged by [NAME_12]. Within the [NAME_25] document produced, the Service Cost 01 July 2017 - 30 June 2018 the Fire Risk Assessment cost £270 for 2 years, however, this doesn’t state that it includes the Health & Safety Element of the cost. As demonstrated in submissions of Sep-18, these assessments are done in house by [NAME_74] and invlove a high degree of repetition year on year. There seems to be a large recurring annual charge with little evidence of any year-on-year change. Also, budget comparision for [NAME_67] for [NAME_66] at Hucknall in Nottingham is £528 for [NAME_110] which is higher than [NAME_51] £480 per annum Management Fees (C135 - 147) 5,760.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. Management Fees do not fall under the description of the mansion as per part ii of schedule 8 of the lease (pages 18- 19) therefore the full amount is to be paid £185.80 Above Market rates for local area We disagree Re. the market rates for the local area We draw the Tribunal's attention to [NAME_52] catalogue of repeated errors, omissions, miscalculations and attempted corrections, throughout their submissions, as an indication of the quality of their management and service, which hardly seems to justify this fee. The errors, if any, are minor and usually corrected at a later date. There were some mistakes make while preparing the bundle, but considering that this goes back nearly 10 years it's a lot of work in a short space of time and easy to get minor things wrong. Errors were mainly minor accounting errors and not management [NAME_12] charge the estate £240 per flat per annum as opposed to £150 per flat per annum at [NAME_25]. The respondent also submits that [NAME_25] is better maintained than [NAME_111] ([NAME_67]) pay £247 per property (including VAT) which is virtually identical to the fees [NAME_51] charge (£240 per property)per annum. As declared in bundle C page 37 and C40, actual expenditure in accounts is £5680. Difference not adjusted, as noted above. The total amount charged and accounted for is £5680, therefore the amount is correct and consistent within the bundle. £5760 was the budget for all four blocks, but the RTM block took charge at the end of November and therefore the charge for December was adjusted accordingly. [NAME_88] (C148-160) 720.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th share, [NAME_94] 1/31st. This is correct as it is a block repair and not an estate repair £30.00 As pointed out to the Tribunal, on their site visit Aug-18, no test switch is installed in the respondent's block Answered previously As declared in bundle C page 37 and C40/C41, actual expenditure in accounts is £710. Difference not adjusted, as noted above. The actual cost was £710 and that's what was accounted for. Where did £720 come from? The cost for December 2017 was £50, not £60 due to RTM Block. Invoices C49 to C60 (labelled "cleaning" above but called "[NAME_23]" in previous years) includes the task "ensure all lighting is operating correctly" and if alarms are installed in the block, this charge includes their inspection. Caretakers do test the lighting monthly. This charge is for the annual 3 hour drop test that is completed on site. This has to be completed by a trained professional employee During site inspection for the 2018 hearing, [NAME_97] claimed that the caretaker does this test. Caretakers do test the lighting monthly. This charge is for the annual 3 hour drop test that is completed on site. This has to be completed by a trained professional employee Given all the above, there should be no additional charge for this monthly test activity Caretakers do test the lighting monthly. This charge is for the annual 3 hour drop test that is completed on site. This has to be completed by a trained professional employee

Window Cleaning (C161-C164) 1,296.00 £ Respondent charged 1/24th £10.50 As conceded by [NAME_13] at the original hearing, 8th August 2018, the Lease makes no provision for [NAME_53] to charge for window cleaning of individual flats. The Respondent has repeatedly disputed this charge in her correspondence. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. As declared in bundle C page 37 and C41, actual expenditure in accounts is £864. Difference not adjusted, as noted above. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. [NAME_63] make no bespoke provision or charge for window cleaning at all for [NAME_25]. We assume this is likely due to them complying with the Lease. [NAME_51] are now only cleaning communal windows and this is what the leaseholders will be charged for. Land Registry Fee (C165 - 167) - £ [NAME_12] include a £9.00 cost in the 2017 income and expenditure (C37) and invoice list (C41). As this item was not originally part of the service charge budget, and as noted above no balancing charge has been issued, the respondent has not been charged for this item. Balancing credit was not issued due to ongoing proceedings If the Tribunal rules this item is chargeable to the estate as a whole, the respondent's share is 1/31st under the lease, however searches are not relating to respondents block (flats 23, 24 and "freehold title") therefore she does not believe any charge should be applicable. This is correct and is not an estate repair listed under part ii of Schedule 8 [NAME_73] 4,000.00 £ In their original service charge budget for 2017, the applicant charged the respondent a 1/24th share of this £4,000 sum, which was set for the whole of [NAME_1]. There are no copies of budgets in the applicant's bundles. At the original hearing, on 08/08/2018, the Tribunal directed the applicant to supply copies of the service charge budgets. The budget [NAME_12] supplied for 2017, in their submission dated 18th September 2018 (page 11), is NOT the budget that was sent to the applicant and other leaseholders on 30/11/2016. The copy of the budget supplied to the Tribunal has been altered, and thus differs from the original, despite maintaining the same dated covering letter. The revised 2017 version was sent to the respondent (and other leaseholders) AFTER the hearing on 10/8/2018. Both versions are attached to the covering letter accompanying these schedules. A revised budget is exactly the same as the original one, the only difference is that £4000 were split between the blocks. It did not change the amounts, only divided £4000 between the blocks depending on their sizes. Block 2-16 share of £4000 is £1333.36 Flat 14 share for the repairs based on the original budget was £166.67 (£4000/24), and the revised one £166.67 (£1333.36/8) [NAME_12] demanded 4.1667 % (1/24th) of this £4,000 budget, so they have demanded £166.67 from the respondent. No comment required [NAME_73] as Identified in Bundle C The items below, as identified in bundle C, are actual maintenance expenditure.We dispute the validity or the reasonableness of these items as listed below. If any amounts are deemed payable by the Tribunal, the difference between this sum and the £166.67 demanded should be credited to the respondent. See each item for comments Removal of waste from site (C168, duplicated C174, C178, C184) 42.00 £ Original 2017 demands charged respondent 1/24th of all block repairs across [NAME_1] . In bundle C page 41 [NAME_12] allocate £14.00 of this charge to the respondent's block, without revising the sum demanded. This invoice is included in each block's repairs, hence four copies. As previously stated - the balancing credit was not issued due to ongoing proceedings 1/31 of £42 = £1.35 Invoice description "removed dumped furniture blocking access to bin area" which suggests block 17-23 or 18-24, as they are the only blocks with such an area. [NAME_12] have not recorded which block's bin area this was, so have split cost equally between all blocks. The furniture could have been dumped by a resident from any block, therefore it's been split correctly between the blocks Correct proportion of respondent's share not identified. As a block cost, it should have been allocated to the block whose bin area was attended to. If the Tribunal believe this is a legitimate cost on the whole estate, then the share payable under the Lease would be 1/31st. The items were dumped by a resident from one of the blocks (not necessarily by those whose bin area that is, as the other blocks use wheelie bins and would not accommodate larger items) so it's a block expenditure and was split between the flats equily. Removal of waste from site (C169, duplicated C175, C179, C185) 84.00 £ Original 2017 demands charged respondent 1/24th of all block repairs across [NAME_1] . In bundle C page 41 [NAME_12] allocate £28.00 of this charge to the respondent's block, without revising the sum demanded. This invoice is included in each block's repairs, hence four copies. As previously stated - the balancing credit was not issued due to ongoing proceedings 1/31 of £84 = £2.71 Invoice does not specify whether this related to rubbish in a specific block's communal area or rubbish on shared estate grounds. As above, it's impossible to know which resident has dumped the rubish, therefore the cost was split between all the flats equally Correct proportion of respondent's share not identified. If this was a block cost, it should have been allocated to the block from where rubbish was removed. If the Tribunal believe this is a legitimate cost on the whole estate, then the share payable under the Lease would be 1/31st It's not an estate cost as the rubish was dumped by one of the residents from one of the blocks. As it's not clear which block it relates to all blocks were charged an appropriate share of the cost. Reversal of credit (C173, duplicated C176, C182, C186) 266.91 £ Original 2017 demands charged respondent 1/24th of all block repairs across [NAME_1] . In bundle C page 41, [NAME_12] allocate £88.97 of this charge to the respondent's block, without revising the sum demanded. Irrelevant, please see below £0 There is no "credit 39175" in the bundles. We believe the credit being reversed is number 31100 (bundle A page 363). The invoice this relates to was a duplication, as noted previously in the 2012 schedule. The original work relating to this invoice was connected to flat 17 and nothing to do with the respondent's block. Correct , the reversal relates to credit note No 31100. Unfortunately we are not able to trace a reason for the reversal of this credit note, therefore we consede it. This cost is being reinstated without explanation (four and a half years after the invoice it relates to was issued) and in contradiction to the bundle C spreadsheet page 29-36. See above