First-tier Tribunal Rules on Service Charges for Residential Flat

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/OOAF/LSC/2025/0890 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : [NAME_3], son-in-law of sole director Type of Application :

For a service charge determination pursuant to Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal Members :

Judge P Korn Judge M Himsworth Ms C [NAME_4] Date of hearing : 9 March 2026 Date of Decision : 29 April 2026

DECISION

Description of hearing

The hearing was a face-to-face hearing.

2 Decisions of the tribunal

(1) None of the service charges are payable unless and until the landlord serves on the tenant demands in respect of those service charges which comply with both section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. (2) Subject to (1) above, the following items are payable in full: • The Applicant’s contribution to the 2025 Flat 12 redecoration works. • The 2023, 2024 and 2025 accounting charges. • The 2023, 2024 and 2025 gardening charges. • The 2025 cost of replacement of fence panel. • The 2023/24 and 2024/25 building insurance premiums. • The 2024 investigation/repair re water ingress. • The 2024 works to exterior of Flats 9, 10 and 12. • The 2024 [NAME_5] further investigative works re Flat 12 and [NAME_5] scaffolding costs. • The 2023 and 2024 managing agent’s charges. • The 2023 specification for garage ceiling. • The 2023 specification for water tank replacement. • The 2022/23 charge for clearing downpipes/gutters. (3) Subject to (1) above, the following items are payable in the reduced amounts set out below: • The Applicant’s contribution to the 2025 Flat 10 redecoration works is limited to £250. • The Applicant’s contribution to the 2025 managing agent’s fees is reduced by 40%.

3 (4) The following items are not payable at all: • The 2025 cost of repair to garage door. • The 2024 surveyor fee overseeing works to exterior of flats. (5) For the sake of completeness, it is noted that – subject to (1) above – the Applicant has conceded that the following other items are payable in full: • 2025 entryphone contract; • 2023 installation of light fittings etc; • 2023 fire risk assessment; • 2023 lamp change; • 2023 EICR/NICEIC certificate; • 2023 replacement of smoke alarm; and • 2022 gutter renewal charges. Introduction 1. The Applicant seeks a service charge determination pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”).

2. The Property is a residential flat within a purpose-built block of 14 flats (“the Building”). There is underground parking and there are front and rear communal gardens. The Applicant is the leaseholder of the Property, and the Respondent is the freeholder of the Building.

3. The Applicant challenges the payability of various service charge items in respect of the service charge years 2020 to 2025.

4. The Respondent’s written submissions in response to the application have been prepared by [NAME_6], a former director of the Respondent company. [NAME_7] had also intended to attend the hearing to speak on behalf of the Respondent company and its sole director, [NAME_3]. However, he was unable to attend and in his place [NAME_3] attended. [NAME_3] is Mrs [NAME_3]’s son-in-law. He informed the tribunal at the start of the hearing that he had access to less information than did [NAME_7], but after some discussion he

4 accepted that the hearing should still proceed rather than being postponed.

5. The hearing bundle has not been prepared in a particularly logical manner, and the parties’ respective evidential cases have been difficult to follow. For example, there is no index and there are no formal statements of case. There is a completed Scott schedule and also a series of statements on behalf of the Respondent together with various (unindexed) items of correspondence and other documents, but it has not been easy to link the various items of evidence with the arguments being made. In the circumstances we have concluded that the best approach is simply to summarise the parties’ respective written submissions on each individual item in dispute as best we can and to include any pertinent comments made at the hearing.

6. Where in the body of this determination it is stated that a particular charge is payable, this needs to be read subject to the overarching point contained in paragraph (1) above. THE DISPUTED ISSUES

2025 Flat 12 redecoration works

Applicant’s case 7. The Applicant states that despite her having requested detailed invoices for these works, the Respondent has failed to provide any invoices or breakdown of cost to date. In her submission, this constitutes the improper use of the service charge fund for the repair and redecoration of a single flat (Flat 12), including the installation of a new kitchen and new flooring plus painting and decorating, and therefore it is not payable as a service charge item. In the alternative, she regards the amount of the cost as unreasonable. She adds that she is unable to provide any alternative quotations as the Respondent has failed to provide itemised invoices.

8. She also states that the Respondent did not follow any section 20 consultation process or acquire more reasonable quotations and that it would have had plenty of time to do so as there was a 7-month gap between the attempted repair of leak in July 2024 and this second leak repair. Also, if the water leak was reported to the Respondent in 2022, the failure to repair for over two years was in her view negligent.

9. At the hearing the Applicant said that there had been no effective repairs for 3 years and that here had been no proper consultation with leaseholders.

5 Respondent’s case 10. The Respondent states that the repairs to Flat 12 have to be seen in the context of some complicated circumstances relating to water ingress. The Respondent then goes on to summarise at length the chain of events relating to the investigation of the source of water ingress and attempts to resolve the problem.

11. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that the cost of repair reflected the level of damage. The wooden floor was warped, the paint was peeling, the kitchen units were distorted, and the kitchen ceiling had come down. Dispensation from the requirement to consult was successfully obtained. The leak travelled through the common parts, and this is why it was charged as a service charge item. Tribunal’s decision 12. It is clear from the hearing bundle that these works were needed following severe penetrating dampness and consequent damage to the flat.

13. The Applicant objects to the Respondent’s failure to consult, but the Respondent then successfully obtained dispensation from the tribunal from the obligation to consult. We are also satisfied, based on the contents of the hearing bundle, (a) that the professionals involved in the water ingress issue had much difficulty in identifying the source of the problem, (b) that the water ingress problem was a building-wide issue and therefore a service charge issue (to the extent not recoverable under the building insurance) and (c) that the water ingress caused much damage which needed to be remedied and that this too was a legitimate service charge expense.

14. The Respondent’s objections are generalised and are not based on expert evidence or alternative quotations or any other objective and persuasive evidence.

15.

Accordingly, this item is payable in full. 2025 Flat 10 redecoration works Applicant’s case 16. The Applicant states that the same contractor was paid an additional £13,255.00 to repair the same source of water leaks as for Flat 12. The section 20 consultation process was not followed. The Applicant also describes the works as incomplete as she says that leaseholders are still

6 reporting continued water leaks from the communal waste pipe in the kitchen void.

17. At the hearing the Applicant said that there had been no consultation and that the amount charged – for example £2,500 to paint a small room – was unreasonable. Respondent’s case 18. The Respondent relies on the same written submissions as for the Flat 12 works.

19. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that water spread under the concrete flooring. He was unable to comment on the breakdown of the charges but said that the contractor was a small company and was not very precise in its use of terminology, which might account for the appearance that less work had been carried out than was actually the case. He was unable to say whether the Respondent undertook formal consultation in relation to these works. Tribunal’s decision 20. There is insufficient evidence that the Respondent went through a section 20 consultation process in relation to these works and there is no evidence before us that the Respondent has applied for dispensation. The Applicant’s contribution towards the cost of these works therefore needs to be limited to a maximum of £250, this being the maximum amount that can be charged where statutory consultation was required but was not carried out and no dispensation was applied for.

21. As to whether the Applicant’s contribution should be even lower than £250, on the evidence contained in the hearing bundle we accept that £250 per leaseholder (at the very least) is a reasonable cost for these works. Whilst her frustration with the amount of investigation and amount spent on damage caused by water ingress, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the works were sub-standard or unnecessary.

22.

Accordingly, the Applicant’s contribution to the cost of these works is limited to £250. 2025 managing agent’s fees Applicant’s case 23. The Applicant states that the Respondent has breached its duty under the lease by failing to collect any service charge from the leaseholders of

7 Flats 3, 7 and 9 between 2023-2025. This has resulted in the depletion of the sinking fund.

24. She states that there has also been a failure to keep any proper accounts or invoices for major repairs, a failure to repair leaks within a reasonable time-frame, a failure to oversee any costly major repair works resulting in failed repairs, and a failure to provide comprehensive handover to the new [COMPANY_8] in July 2025 as the managing agents were unable to provide health and safety documents, contract/supplier information, accounts or invoices.

25. At the hearing, the Applicant said that the ‘right to manage (RTM) company’ took over the management on 1 October 2025. With the relevant service charge year beginning in December 2024 leaseholders should not have been charged for a full year. She also criticised the managing agent’s handling of the water ingress issue and the service charge arrears issue, and she said that the managing agent did not engage with the [COMPANY_8] regarding handover and left the Building uninsured for a month in August 2025. Respondent’s case 26. In written submissions the Respondent takes issue with the Applicant’s complaints, but the Respondent’s specific arguments are difficult to summarise and in places difficult to follow.

27. At the hearing, [NAME_3] said that arrears reminder letters were sent out regularly. He also made the point that the managing agent was carrying out work of benefit to the leaseholders such as organising gardening. He was unsure what the factual position was regarding building insurance for August 2025 and was unable to comment on whether the managing agent had engaged with the [COMPANY_8] and generally on how active or otherwise it had been towards the end of its appointment. Tribunal’s decision 28. The evidence does not support the proposition that the managing agent did not manage the Building at all during this year. However, on the basis of the evidence before us we accept that the managing agent was only entitled to charge for the period to 1 October 2025 but appears to have charged for a full year. In addition, we accept the Applicant’s submission that the managing agent did not engage with the [COMPANY_8] on handover and paid less attention to management towards the end of its tenure.

29. Taking all factors in the round, we consider that the management fee should be reduced by 40%.

8 2025 accounting charges Applicant’s case 30. The Applicant states that over the past 5 years leaseholders have been charged £5,000 for accounting fees but that to date there is no evidence of certified accounts having been provided by a qualified accountant.

31. At the hearing the Applicant said that no work had been done which justified a fee and there were no service charge accounts, although the tribunal pointed out that the hearing bundle contained an Excel spreadsheet containing figures that had been provided by the managing agent. Respondent’s case 32. The Respondent states that the lease terms do not require certified accounts or a full audit and that it has supplied leaseholders with a summary of relevant service charge costs over this 5 year period. Based on the Respondent’s research the accounting charges fall within the normal range of such charges. Documentation has been available to inspect. Tribunal’s decision 33. The contents of the hearing bundle support the Respondent’s submission that service charge documentation was available to inspect. Having considered the information in the hearing bundle, including the Excel spreadsheet containing figures provided by the managing agent, we consider that £1,000 was a reasonable fee for this function.

34. Therefore, this sum is fully payable. 2025 gardening charges Applicant’s case 35. The Applicant states that the Respondent has not consulted leaseholders as required under section 20 of the 1985 Act regarding a costly contract for grounds maintenance. She is not willing to pay what she sees as excessive costs for services without appropriate consultation.

36. At the hearing the Applicant said that the gardening contract was a qualifying long-term agreement which had not been consulted on and therefore that there was a limit to the amount that the Respondent could recover.

9 Respondent’s case 37. The Respondent states that the annual charge works out at less than £250.00 per leaseholder and is therefore below the consultation threshold.

38. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that the Respondent had an informal agreement with the gardener and it was not a long-term contract. Tribunal’s decision 39. The Respondent’s written submissions are confused on this point. The £250 limit relates to qualifying works, but the relevant question here is whether the arrangements with the gardener amounted to a qualifying long-term agreement (a “QLTA”). If it did constitute a QLTA and if the Respondent neither went through the statutory consultation process nor sought and obtained dispensation the maximum amount recoverable would be £100 per leaseholder per year.

40. However, in this case the Applicant has brought no real evidence to show that this was a QLTA (i.e. evidence such as a copy of the written contract, if any, or an admission by the Respondent), and therefore we are not satisfied that it was a QLTA. The evidence before us suggests that it was a very informal arrangement and therefore that neither party was bound for a period of over a year.

41.

Accordingly, and in the absence of any other persuasive challenge, these charges are payable in full. 2025 cost of replacement of fence panel Applicant’s case 42. The Applicant states that there is no evidence that any of the fence panels have been replaced, and nor has she been provided with any copy invoices for fence panel replacement.

43. At the hearing the Applicant said that the works had merely consisted of the replacement of two concrete posts and that £150 to £200 would be a more reasonable amount. Respondent’s case 44. The Respondent has included in the hearing bundle a copy of the contractor’s invoice dated 31 January 2025.

10 45. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that he had no information on this point. Tribunal’s decision 46. We note that the hearing bundle contains an invoice which specifies the work that was done and we accept that the amount charged is a reasonable cost for the work stated to have been done. [NAME_3] himself does not have personal knowledge of this matter, this does not by itself demonstrate that the charge is unreasonable as he was not expecting to be appearing at the hearing and does not claim to have all the information at his fingertips. There is no evidence or reason to believe that the invoice is fraudulent, and work of this nature can be more time-consuming than is apparent to a layperson just looking at the end product.

47. On the basis of the position as set out above, this charge is payable in full. 2025 cost of repair to garage door Applicant’s case 48. The Applicant states that leaseholders were charged £1,320.00 in November 2023 for the Respondent’s contractor supplying and fitting a new motor kit to the garage door. She asks whether, if the warranty period is usually 2-5 years, leaseholders should be required to pay for its repair so soon after these works were carried out. Respondent’s case 49. The Respondent states that the invoice for this work has not been located, and at the hearing [NAME_3] was unable to comment. Tribunal’s decision 50. As no invoice has been provided and the Respondent has been unable to explain the position in written submissions or at the hearing, this item is not payable. 2024/25 building insurance premium Applicant’s case 51. The Applicant states that the Respondent demanded £12,500 for annual building insurance for 2024/2025 but that she has discovered that the true cost was only £10, 318. In addition, the Respondent left

11 the Building uninsured from September 2025 to October 2025 claiming that there were no funds available to pay the insurance. As a result, she felt obliged to pay the insurance premium for that month herself at a cost of £2,266.00.

52. At the hearing the Applicant stated that in every year the estimate has exceeded the actual insurance premium. Respondent’s case 53. The Respondent states that the £12,500 figure was based on the previous year’s figure plus an allowance for an expected uplift. The budgeted uplift of 15% is considered reasonable in the light of previous increases.

54. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that leaseholders were never asked to pay the estimated amount, they were merely warned that it might be that high. Tribunal’s decision 55. This challenge is misconceived. If the managing agent gave an unreasonably high estimate then the issue is with the performance of the managing agent; it is not a challenge to the amount of the insurance premium as the Respondent has ultimately only been required to pay the actual amount. In any event, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the estimate was unreasonably high. She does not appear to be challenging the reasonableness of the actual building insurance premium for this year.

56. In the absence of any other challenge, this charge is payable in full. 2024 investigation/repair re water ingress Applicant’s case 57. The Applicant states that the Respondent paid its preferred contractor in excess of £6,900 to complete a survey using binoculars from the ground and to erect scaffolding in order to ‘repair’ water ingress into multiple flats. In her submission this made no difference to the water ingress problem and the scaffolding was removed after 14 days. The incomplete/failed repair works were signed off by Respondent and paid in full out of the service charge.

58. Despite the Applicant requesting detailed invoices, the Respondent has failed to provide these. Scaffolding was subsequently re-erected by a

12 second contractor to the same area (for repeat repair works) at a cost of £1,914.00. Respondent’s case 59. The Respondent has included a copy of [COMPANY_9]’s invoice in the hearing bundle as well as a copy of [NAME_11]’s letter to leaseholders seeking feedback. No feedback was received and the matter was felt to be urgent, therefore dispensation was sought and obtained to use [COMPANY_9].

60. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that the Respondent had received professional advice that the issue needed to be investigated and that full scaffolding was needed for that purpose. He accepted that the contractor did not manage to fix the problem, but this did not mean that the decision to incur this cost was unreasonable at the time. Tribunal’s decision 61. The Applicant is using hindsight to justify her view that this charge does not represent value for money. However, she is not an expert and the Respondent relied on professional advice. As is often the case with water ingress, the issues were complex and needed proper investigation and on the basis of the evidence before us it proved difficult to identify the source of the leaks.

62. In the absence of a more persuasive challenge by the Applicant, this charge is payable in full. 2024 works to exterior of Flats 9, 10 and 12 Applicant’s case 63. The Applicant states that the Respondent paid its preferred surveyor/contractor in excess of £3,700.00 to stick 3 PVC strips over the windows of Flats 9, 10 and 12 to ‘repair’ the water ingress. There was no difference to the water ingress, but the works were signed off by the Respondent and its contractor was paid in full despite the lack of effective repair. The Applicant has requested detailed copy invoices, but these have not been provided.

64. The Applicant adds that leaseholders were later forced to pay over £33,000 to a second contractor in 2025 for repeat investigations and a repeat repair of two flats.

65. At the hearing the Applicant expressed scepticism that the work could have taken more than 2 days.

13 Respondent’s case 66. The Respondent states that the works are itemised in the invoice of [COMPANY_9] which is in the hearing bundle. The work was much more extensive than as characterised by the Applicant, with the contractor spending 8½ days working at the site as shown in the invoice. The Respondent adds that the first scaffolding was erected to investigate what was believed to be the area of water ingress concern, and only with hindsight was that proved to be incorrect. The source of the leak was latent and extremely difficult to find. There was also no repeat repair. Tribunal’s decision 67. The Respondent’s written submissions are strong on this point. It has provided an invoice with a detailed narrative and a good accompanying explanation. The Applicant is not an expert and has no objective evidence to support her opinion.

68.

Accordingly, this charge is payable in full. 2024 surveyor fee overseeing works to exterior of flats Applicant’s case 69. The Applicant states that the Respondent paid its preferred contractor/surveyor ([NAME_12]) to deliver and oversee these repairs. Despite the £2,610 overseeing fee, for which no invoice has been provided to date, the works were in her view completely ineffective and poorly managed, resulting in new investigative works and repairs taking place within months.

70. At the hearing the Applicant said that [NAME_12] himself had questioned this charge as he was not aware of having invoiced for it. Respondent’s case 71. The Respondent states that the contractor was qualified to investigate and that the fact that it did not discover the source of the leak does not mean that the cost of investigation is irrecoverable.

72. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that there had been some form of dispute with [NAME_12] but he was unable to comment further.

14 Tribunal’s decision 73. The Applicant has raised a clear objection to this charge and has provided some support for her challenge. We have read [NAME_12]’ email referred to by the Applicant and do not find it very clear, but the Respondent has been unable to provide an invoice or a good explanation as to why this charge is payable.

74. On the basis of the evidence before us, we conclude that this charge is not payable. 2024 [NAME_5] further investigative works re Flat 12 and [NAME_5] scaffolding costs Applicant’s case 75. Following what the Applicant characterises as failed repair works that were signed off by the Respondent in July 2024, a second contractor was instructed to investigate and resolve the water ingress problem. Repeat works were paid for costing in excess of £19,000 and £13,300 for this second repair in March/April 2025. The Applicant adds that there is also an absence of detailed transparent invoices.

76. At the hearing the Applicant said that these charges had been billed in the wrong accounting year, although she struggled to explain why this in itself (even if accurate) demonstrates that the charges are not payable at all. Respondent’s case 77. The Respondent states that this further investigation was undertaken by a new contractor who provided a quotation, and copy invoices are in the hearing bundle. Tribunal’s decision 78. There are copy invoices and in our view the Applicant’s challenge is weak. She has not shown why the fact that these charges were billed in the wrong accounting year (even if accurate) demonstrates that the charges are not payable at all, and her other challenge is unpersuasive as she is not an expert and has not provided any objective evidence to support her view.

79.

Accordingly, this charge is payable in full.

15 2024 gardening charges Applicant’s case 80. The Applicant makes the same point regarding lack of consultation as she does for 2025. Respondent’s case 81. The Respondent states that the annual charge works out at less than £250 per leaseholder and is therefore below the consultation threshold. Tribunal’s decision 82. For the same reasons as are set out in relation to the 2025 gardening charges, these charges are payable in full. 2024 managing agent’s fees Applicant’s case 83. The Applicant states that the managing agent mismanaged and misappropriated the service charge funds, and that this included a failure to maintain the Building or to respond to complaints within reasonable time frame. The agent also did not properly oversee costly major repair works, and this resulted in failed repairs and inconvenience and stress to leaseholders. There was also an absence of invoices for major costly repairs.

84. At the hearing the Applicant said that there had been no proper management of the leak issue and that the managing agent did not chase arrears. Respondent’s case 85. The Respondent states that the charge was £245.12 per flat which it considers to be reasonable. It does not accept the Applicant’s allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of service charge funds.

86. At the hearing, [NAME_3] said that arrears reminder letters were sent out regularly. He also made the point that the managing agent was carrying out work of benefit to the leaseholders such as organising gardening.

16 Tribunal’s decision 87. Whilst there were identifiable shortcomings in the management in 2025, we do not accept that the Applicant has demonstrated significant management failings in 2024. The water ingress problem was protracted, but the source of water ingress can be very difficult to determine and the Applicant has not provided any credible objective evidence showing that the service was sub-standard. The charge of £245.12 per flat was a relatively modest one, and the managing agent provided a range of services for this, the effectiveness of most of which has not been challenged.

88. These charges are therefore payable in full. 2024 accounting charges Applicant’s case 89. The Applicant makes the same point regarding lack of certification of accounts as she does for 2025.

90. At the hearing the Applicant said that no work had been done which justified a fee and there were no service charge accounts, although the tribunal pointed out that the hearing bundle contained an Excel spreadsheet containing figures that had been provided by the managing agent. Respondent’s case 91. The Respondent states that the lease terms do not require certified accounts or a full audit and that it has supplied leaseholders with a summary of relevant service charge costs over this 5 year period. Based on the Respondent’s research the accounting charges fall within the normal range of such charges. Tribunal’s decision 92. For the same reasons as are set out in relation to the 2025 accounting charges, these charges are payable in full. 2023/24 building insurance premium

Applicant’s case 93. The Applicant states that in November 2023 the Respondent demanded £17,000 for building insurance but that the policy was renewed for

17 £10,486 in September 2023. She characterises the demand as having been fraudulently exaggerated. Respondent’s case 94. The Respondent accepts that the managing agent budgeted for £17,000 and that this amount was excessive. However, it was a mistake which was readily admitted by the managing agent. Whilst it is not understood how the mistake occurred, it was an isolated mistake and was not fraudulent as it was not committed deliberately for the purposes of any gain. The actual premium paid is shown in the service charge accounts. Tribunal’s decision 95. This challenge is misconceived. If the managing agent gave an unreasonably high estimate then the issue is with the performance of the managing agent. This is not a challenge to the amount of the insurance premium as the Applicant has ultimately only been required to pay the actual amount.

96. In the absence of any other challenge, this charge is payable in full. 2023 specification for garage ceiling Applicant’s case 97. The Applicant states that the garage ceiling has not been repaired to date and therefore that the cost of this specification is wasted money as a new specification will be needed if the Respondent decides to carry out this work.

98. At the hearing the Applicant said that the Respondent should have prioritised other works. Respondent’s case 99. The Respondent states that the work was not carried out because of the substantial amounts of service charge that were owing in circumstances where funds were being drained by the need to deal with the water ingress problem. The Respondent maintains that the specification remains of value for such time as the work itself can be afforded from the service charge funds. 100. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that this proposed upgrade to the garage ceiling was needed for fire safety reasons as better fire

18 protection was needed. A specification was put together but then leaseholders objected to money being spent on carrying out the works. Tribunal’s decision 101. On the basis of the contents of the hearing bundle and the parties’ respective submissions, we are satisfied that at the time the decision was taken to have a specification prepared for these works it was a reasonable decision to make. The rationale was fire safety, and the Applicant is not an expert on fire safety and has produced no evidence to cast doubt on the proposition that the works were needed for fire safety reasons. There is also no evidence that the cost of the specification was unreasonable. 102.

Accordingly, this charge is payable in full. 2023 specification for water tank replacement Applicant’s case 103. The Applicant states that this work has also not been carried out to date and therefore that the cost of this specification is wasted money as a new specification will be needed if the Respondent decides to carry out the work. Respondent’s case 104. The Respondent states that a dilemma was created by the objection of certain leaseholders, including the Applicant, to the works being carried out. The objection was due to the fact that over a period of years without the Respondent’s knowledge the delivery of water into many flats changed from water tank storage to mains water combi boilers. There was much correspondence on the subject. 105. Ultimately the work was not carried out because of the substantial amounts of service charge that were owing in circumstances where funds were being drained by the need to deal with the water ingress problem. The Respondent maintains that the specification remains of value for such time as the work itself can be afforded from the service charge funds. 106. At the hearing [NAME_3] said that a plumber had expressed concern about the age of the water tanks and this had led to the Respondent obtaining a specification.

19 Tribunal’s decision 107. On the basis of the contents of the hearing bundle and the parties’ respective submissions, we are satisfied that at the time that the decision was taken to have a specification prepared for these works it was a reasonable decision to make. The rationale was concern about the age of the water tanks, and the Applicant is not an expert on water tanks and has produced no evidence to cast doubt on the proposition that at the very least it was prudent to obtain a specification. There is also no evidence that the cost of the specification was unreasonable. 108.

Accordingly, this charge is payable in full. 2023 gardening charges Applicant’s case 109. The Applicant makes the same point regarding lack of consultation as she does for 2025. Respondent’s case 110. The Respondent states that the annual charge works out at less than £250 per leaseholder and is therefore below the consultation threshold. Tribunal’s decision 111. For the same reasons as are set out in relation to the 2025 gardening charges, these charges are payable in full. 2023 managing agent’s charges Applicant’s case 112. The Applicant again states that the managing agent mismanaged and misappropriated the service charge funds, and that this included a failure to maintain the Building. The Respondent also wasted money on specifications that were ultimately not used and failed to chase leaseholders for payment of service charges which ultimately depleted the reserves. 113. At the hearing the Applicant said that there had been no proper management of the leak issue and that the managing agent did not chase arrears.

20 Respondent’s case 114. The Respondent states that the charge was £235.21 per flat which it considers to be reasonable. It does not accept the Applicant’s allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of service charge funds. 115. At the hearing, [NAME_3] said that arrears reminder letters were sent out regularly. He also made the point that the managing agent was carrying out work of benefit to the leaseholders such as organising gardening. Tribunal’s decision 116. For the same reasons as are set out in relation to the 2024 managing agent’s charges, these charges are payable in full. 2023 accounting charges Applicant’s case 117. The Applicant makes the same point regarding lack of certification of accounts as she does for 2025. Respondent’s case 118. The Respondent states that the lease terms do not require certified accounts or a full audit and that it has supplied leaseholders with a summary of relevant service charge costs over this 5 year period. Based on the Respondent’s research the accounting charges fall within the normal range of such charges. Tribunal’s decision 119. For the same reasons as are set out in relation to the 2025 accounting charges, these charges are payable in full. 2022/23 charge for clearing downpipes/gutters Applicant’s case 120. The Applicant states that leaseholders were charged £2,400 in 2022 for the renewal of guttering and does not accept that they should be required to pay a further £300 to clear that guttering within a few months of renewal.

21 121. At the hearing the Applicant said that no invoice had been provided. Respondent’s case 122. The Respondent has included in the hearing bundle copies of the invoices for £2,400 and £300 and states that the two sets of works are completely different and therefore that there is no duplication. Tribunal’s decision 123. A copy of the relevant invoice is at page 142 of the version of the hearing bundle which is 397 pages long. The fact that gutters have been renewed does not mean that they will not subsequently need to be cleared, and the charge is reasonable for the work set out in the invoice. 124.

Accordingly, this charge is payable in full. 2021/22 decorations to bedroom and living room Applicant’s case 125. The Applicant states that her understanding of the lease is that, whilst the landlord is responsible for repair to communal areas, the internal redecoration of a flat is the responsibility of the individual leaseholder or their home and contents insurance. 126. At the hearing the Applicant said that she had no idea why these decorations were needed or why the cost should form part of the service charge. Respondent’s case 127. The Respondent states that the damage in this case falls outside of the leaseholder’s responsibility as the damage was not caused by anything for which the leaseholder (of Flat 10) was responsible. It resulted from water damage that was caused by leaks the source of which was outside the flat. Tribunal’s decision 128. Although the Respondent has not provided a detailed response on this specific issue, elsewhere in the hearing bundle it has provided a detailed narrative in relation to the water ingress issue. Investigations have been undertaken by relevant professionals over time and remedial works have been carried out where the water ingress has caused damage to the inside of individual flats.

22 129. We agree with the Respondent that, in principle at least, if damage is caused to the interior of a flat due to water ingress and if the source of the water ingress is something that happens in the common parts or retained parts of the Building then the repair is the responsibility of the landlord and the cost of that repair is recoverable through the service charge (assuming that the service charge provisions are wide enough). 130. The Respondent’s written submissions could have been better presented. However, on the basis of the evidence before us and in the absence of a more detailed and persuasive challenge from the Applicant and having checked the lease service charge provisions, we are satisfied that the reasonable cost of these decorations is recoverable through the service charge. There is no challenge to the reasonableness of the level of charges and no evidence that the level of charges is unreasonable. 131.

Accordingly, this charge is payable in full. Validity of service charge demands generally Applicant’s case 132. The Applicant states that from 2020 to 2025 the service charge demands posted by the Respondent have never included the landlord’s name and residential address and have never been accompanied by a summary of tenant rights and obligations. This submission is supported by witness statements given by two other leaseholders. Respondent’s case 133. The Respondent states the Applicant could easily have found out the landlord’s details. In any event, the Respondent “had previously provided a valid Section 48 Notice e.g. in an earlier set of accounts”. Tribunal’s decision 134. The relevant parts of section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 read as follows: (1) Where any written demand is given to a tenant of premises to which this Part applies [essentially residential premises], the demand must contain … the name and address of the Landlord … (2) Where – (a) a tenant of any such premises is given such a demand, but (b) it does not contain any information required to be contained in it by virtue of subsection (1), then … any part of the amount demanded which consists of a service charge … shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before

23 that information is furnished by the landlord by notice given to the tenant. 135. The relevant parts of section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 read as follows: (1) A demand for the payment of a service charge must be accompanied by a summary of the rights and obligations of tenants of dwellings in relation to service charges. (3) A tenant may withhold payment of a service charge which has been demanded from him if subsection (1) is not complied with in relation to the demand. (4) Where a tenant withholds a service charge under this section, any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of service charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it. 136. The Respondent has not rebutted the Applicant’s statement that the service charge demands served on her have neither included the landlord’s name and residential address nor been accompanied by a summary of tenant rights and obligations. Therefore, the evidence before us indicates that all service charge demands have fallen foul of both section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (“Section 47”) and section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“Section 21B”). 137. In the case of Section 47, it is explicitly stated in section 47(2) that the amount of service charge requested in a demand falling foul of Section 47 “shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before that information is furnished by the landlord by notice given to the tenant”. In other words, the breach is curable and the service charge becomes payable once a compliant demand has been served. 138. As regards Section 21B, the language used is different but the effect is the same. Section 21B(3) does not state that a service charge requested in a demand falling foul of Section 21B is not payable; rather it states that the tenant “may withhold” payment. Section 21B(4) then goes on to state that “where a tenant withholds a service charge under [Section 21B], any provisions of the lease relating to non-payment or late payment of service charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it”. Therefore, the practical effect of Section 21B is the same as Section 47, namely that the obligation to pay the service charge is suspended until such time as the landlord has served a compliant demand on the tenant.

24 139. Therefore, none of the service charges which are the subject of this application are payable by the Applicant unless and until demands have been served on her in respect of those service charges which are compliant with both Section 47 and Section 21B. Cost applications 140. [NAME_3] for the Respondent stated that the Respondent was not seeking to charge to leaseholders (whether through the service charge or otherwise) any costs incurred by it in relation to these proceedings. Consequently, it was agreed that it was unnecessary for the Applicant to make any cost application under section 20C of the 1985 Act or any cost application under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

Name:

Judge P Korn

Date:

29 April 2026

RIGHTS OF APPEAL

A. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office dealing with the case.

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

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

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

25 APPENDIX

Appendix of relevant legislation (in addition to legislation specifically quoted above)

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) Section 18 (1) In the following provisions of this Act "service charge" means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent - (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord's costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs. (2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable. (3) For this purpose - (a) "costs" includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. Section 19 (1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period - (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provisions of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly. (2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. Section 27A (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 -

26 (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An application may also be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to - (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (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 (6) An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling … is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination – (a) in a particular manner, or (b) on particular evidence.