First-tier Tribunal rules on service charges for tenants

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER

(RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference :

(1) LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0265 ([NAME_1])

(2) LON/00AQ/LSC/2023/0487 (Flat 6)

(3) LON/00AQ/LSC/2024/0072 ([NAME_2])

AND

(4) LON/00AQ/LSC/2023/0255 (Re: Claim No: J7QZ8E6K- [NAME_1])

Property :

[ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants :

[redacted]

(2) [NAME_8] & Mrs [NAME_11] [NAME_10]

(3) [NAME_12] ([NAME_2])

AND

(4) [COMPANY_15] : [NAME_3]

Respondent :

[redacted]

AND

[NAME_16] & Mrs [NAME_18] [NAME_6] (Application (4) )

Representative : [NAME_19], counsel

Type of applications : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini

Mrs A [NAME_21]

[NAME_22]

Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Hearing date

Date of decision : 22 & 23 May 2024

27 July 2024

DECISION

Decisions of the tribunal

(1) The tribunal makes the determinations as set out in this Decision. In view of the large number of items of service charge challenged over a significant number of service charge years, the tribunal has attached to this Decision and forms part of it, those Scott Schedules with its comments and determinations.

(2) The tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine issues in respect of ground rent and therefore declines to do so.

(3) The tribunal has no jurisdiction to impose fines on the Respondent in respect of alleged breaches of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions and declines to do so.

(4) The parties must note that this decision does not remake or go behind the decision made in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 in respect of the payability of services charges by the lessee of [NAME_2] for the service charge years 2018/2019; 2019/2020; 2020/2021; 2022/2023. Therefore, this decision applies to the lessee of [NAME_2] in respect of service charges arising in 2023/2024 only.

(5) The [NAME_24] entered into a Mediation Settlement Agreement with the respondent in respect of Claim No: J6QZ3C4X (arrears of service charges). Therefore, this decision cannot be relied upon by the [NAME_24] in respect of those service charge /years that were compromised in that agreement. Therefore, this decision applies to the [NAME_24] only in respect of the service charge years 2022/2023 which do not form part of the county court claim no: J6QZ3C4X.

(6) The tribunal finds the sum of £2,644.67 is payable by the [NAME_16] and Mrs [NAME_7] [NAME_6] in respect of the County Court claim No EAG92290.

(7) The tribunal remits this decision to the County Court sitting at Barnet for any appropriate Order and determination of court fees, interest and costs payable by [NAME_16] and Mrs [NAME_7] [NAME_6] to [COMPANY_15] in Claim No EAG92290.

(8) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 so that none of the landlord’s costs of the tribunal proceedings may be passed to the lessees through any service charge.

The application

1. The Applicants seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) and Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”)] as to the amount of service charges and where applicable administration charges payable by the Applicants or some of them in respect of the service charge years 2018/2019; 2019/2020; 2020/2021 an2022/2023 and 2023/2024.

2. The Applicants also seek and Order under s.20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 preventing the respondent from passing its costs of the litigation in the tribunal onto the Applicants.

3. By an order made on 28 March 2023 and dated 5 May 2023 by District Judge Griffiths in Claim No: EAG92290 the claim brough by [COMPANY_15] against [NAME_3] and Mrs [NAME_7] [NAME_6] was transferred to the First-tier Tribunal for a determination of the claim for payment of £5,820.67 in respect of unpaid service charges and associated costs. The tribunal will not determine any issues of court fees, interest and costs and the tribunal will remit the matter back to the county court.

The background

4. The property which is the subject of this application is a purpose-built block of eight flats of which the applicants are the long lessees of Flats 2, 6 and 7. Four of the flats share a communal entrance and the remaining four flats have individual entrances. The respondent [COMPANY_15] is the Freeholder of the subject property.

5. The Applicant lessees hold a long lease of the property which requires the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge. The specific provisions of the leases will be referred to below, where appropriate.

6. In LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 the tribunal determined the payability and reasonableness of items of service charges challenged by [NAME_12], the lessee of [NAME_2] for the period 2018 to 2023 (inclusive). Therefore, Mr N [NAME_6]’s current application challenging the payability/reasonableness of service charges for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024 must be limited to a challenge to service charge year 2023/2024 in order to avoid a duplication of proceedings/abuse of process in respect of this Applicant lessee. The items relating to 2023/2024 that were raised by the lessee of [NAME_2] and that were not covered by the Scott Schedules concern:

(i) Drain service (covered by tribunal’s previous decision)

(ii) Internal decorating works charged on 17 July 2023 totalling £265.50.

(iii) Sweep of electrics charged on 12 February 2024 2024 totalling £15.05.

(iv) Grit spreading charged on 12 February totalling £21.24

7. In Claim No: J6QZ3C4X Mr [NAME_9] and Mrs [NAME_11] [NAME_10] reached a Mediation Settlement Agreement in the sum of £6,740 with [COMPANY_15] in respect of a claim for unpaid service charges and associated costs for the service charge years 2020 to 2022 (inclusive). Consequently, their application to the tribunal concerned only the service charge year 2022/2023.

8. In Claim NO: J7QZ8E6K the claimant/respondent [NAME_14] sought payment of unpaid service charges and associated costs from [NAME_3] and Mrs [NAME_25] [NAME_6], the lessees of [NAME_1] in the sum of £5,820.67. This sum was reflected in a statement of account dated 16 September used to substantiate the Claim and concerned the period 01/02/2022 to 16/09/2022 with a debit opening balance of £1,542.57 (for which no details were provided). The Claim included a claim for ground rent in the sum of £200 as well as a number of administration costs. The Claim was subsequently transferred to this tribunal for determination of the payability of service charges and associated costs (within the jurisdiction of the tribunal).

9. The tribunal subsequently issued Directions dated 22 March 2024 in which all applications made in the First-tier Tribunal were consolidated and combined with the transferred county claim No: J7QZ8E6K.

10. In LON/00AQ/LRM/2023/0045 the [ADDRESS] Company Ltd acquired the right to manage with effect from 15 December 2023.

The hearing

11. The Applicants were represented by [NAME_4] at the hearing and the Respondent appeared was represented by [NAME_19] of counsel.

12. It was accepted by the parties that the tribunal’s determination of the payability and/or reasonableness of any items disputed in the service charge year 2023/2024 should apply to all Applicants regardless of whether that service charge year had been included in their own applications.

13. All of the Applicants adopted the Scott Schedules provided to the tribunal and the written representations made by them.

14. The lessee of [NAME_1] also produced a revised Scott Schedule in respect of two additional items that were identified as Management Fee £360 and Electrical Specification £221.25. These charges were said not to have previously included due to alleged missing information from the respondent. Although, the respondent had responded to the original Scott Schedule for 2021/2022, an opportunity was provided at the hearing for the respondent to make its comments upon these items and the tribunal made a determination on these two items as appears below.

15. The service charge year 2021/2022 for in which the respondent’s comments were not included. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, the tribunal took into account for the purposes of this decision the original Scott Schedule for 23021/2022 so that both parties’ comments could be taken into account and which is attached to this decision.

16. The Applicants relied upon a hearing bundle comprising 1149 digital pages.

17. In addition to the documents disclosed by the Respondent in the bundle of documents, counsel for the Respondent provided an extensive Skeleton Argument to which was attached the RICS code of practice (3rd Edition) and copies of case law on which it relied.

18. Neither the lessees of Flats 2 nor 7 provided a witness statement in support of the applications. However detailed comments were provided in the Scott Schedules which were relied upon by all Applicants. as their evidence as well as oral submissions. Mr and Mrs [NAME_26] the lessees of [NAME_2] provided an (undated) witness statement and [NAME_27] gave oral evidence to the tribunal.

19. The Respondent also relied on the entries it had made in the Scott Schedules although it did not provide any witness statement.

The issues

20. At the start of the hearing the parties identified the relevant issues for determination as follows:

(i) The payability and/or reasonableness of service charges for the service charge years 2018 to 2024 (inclusive).*

*The whole period in dispute is not applicable to all of the Applicants for the reasons identified above in the Summary Decision.

The items in dispute for the service charge year ending 31 March 2024 were:

1. Drain service

2. Internal decorating works

3. Sweep of electrics

4. Grit spreading.

21. At the hearing, the tribunal went through each item on the Applicants’ (updated) Scott Schedules. Unfortunately, due to the Applicants provision of multiple, sometimes revised Scott Schedules, the Schedules provided in the Bundle did not all contain the Respondent’s comments e.g. Scott Schedule for 2021/2022. However, the tribunal has made every effort to include in its determination all of the disputed items and ensured the Respondent had a fair opportunity to respond at the oral hearing.

22. In the Scott Schedules, the lessees accepted the findings of the tribunal in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 but nevertheless sought to dispute items of service charge which the tribunal found were reasonable and payable in that decision.

23. Although, the earlier decision is not binding on the tribunal it is nevertheless persuasive, particularly where the Applicants challenge the tribunal’s earlier findings but produce no further evidence by which to support their arguments. However, where evidence is produced that was not before the previous tribunal, the decision by this tribunal may differ from the decision in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290. Therefore, after having heard all of the oral evidence and submissions from the parties and considered the documents provided by the parties the tribunal’s determinations are as follows.

The tribunal’s determinations and reasons

24. The tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as identified in the Scott Schedules attached, which form part of its Decision.

25. In addition, the tribunal makes the following determination in respect of the additional items that were included in the Applicants’ revised Scott Schedule for 2021/2022 as follows:

Management Fee 2021/2022: £360: The tribunal allows a fee of £250 per annum per flat as it finds the service provided by the managing agent to be of limited value and assistance to the Applicants.

Electrical Specification (29/11/2022) £221.25: This sum is disallowed in full. The respondent carried out extensive [NAME_28] in about 2018 which had they been carried out to a reasonable standard, should not have incurred these further costs. The respondent accepted at the hearing it was unclear as to what this item related.

26. In reaching its decision in respect of the matters transferred from the county court, the tribunal was not greatly assisted by either party in understanding how the transferred opening balance of £1,542.57 was reached. Therefore, in the absence of any, or any persuasive evidence that this sum was made up of any items disallowed by the tribunal, the tribunal took this figure as its starting point in order to determine what, if any, sum was payable by the lessees of [NAME_1] to the respondent in the county court claim.

27. The tribunal then deducted from this sum the items that appear below and finds the sum of £2,644.67 is payable by the [NAME_24] in the County Claim No J6QZ3C4X. The tribunal finds the following sums claimed by [NAME_14] in the County Claim No J6QZ3C4X are not payable for the reasons included on the relevant Scott Schedules:

(i) Ground rent £200 – not within jurisdiction of tribunal

(ii) 04/04/2022 Notice of proceedings - £60.00

(iii) 24/08/2022 Admin costs - £480.00

(iv) [NAME_29] referral fee - £216.00

(v) [NAME_29] correspondence fee - £474.00

(vi) 01/09/2022 [NAME_29] lender correspondence - £630.00

(vii) 16/09/2022 [NAME_29] claim processing fee- - £636.00

(viii) Admin costs - £480.00

Total: £3,176.00

Application under s.20C of L&T 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of CLARA 2002

28. In the application form the Applicants applied for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Having heard the submissions from the parties and taking into account the determinations above, the tribunal determine that it is just and equitable in the circumstances for an order to be made under section 20C of the 1985 Act, so that the Respondent may not pass any of its costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the tribunal through the service charge.

29. The tribunal determines it is reasonable to make an order under paragraph 5 of schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 so that the Applicants are not liable to pay any administration charge by the Respondent in respect of the litigation costs in the tribunal.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 22 July 2024

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have.

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

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.

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

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.

If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

SCHEDULE

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED [2018/2019]

ITEM COST TENANTS’ COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS THE TRIBUNAL’S [NAME_28]

£3,757.43

My share 1/8 =

£469.68 [NAME_28] was carried out in July 2018 greater than £250 per flat. I do not see any Section 20 consultation sent out to me. I ask the tribunal to decide for a refund of this whole amount considering the freeholder / managing agent didn’t consult with all the leaseholders in the block. As will be seen in numerous [NAME_28] related service charges disputed in later years – it shows the work carried out in 2018 was perhaps very poor!

£469.68 was paid in full

This appears to be incorrect. Attached emails clearly show this having been sent and in fact responses from the Applicant on this matter! The tribunal finds the s.20 consultation was carried out by the Respondent. The tribunal finds the costs of the works are reasonable and payable by the Applicant

Notice of Proceedings

£120 The letter was issued on account of not settling for [NAME_30]. There were numerous back and forth emails with [NAME_31] who just responded with a one-line statement and no evidence of the guarantee. I stated I was OK to settle the [NAME_30] invoice as long as the terms stated wrt the warranty for the [NAME_30] were presented to us as evidence. I received no response. I ask the tribunal to assess the reasonableness of this service charge. In addition, I ask the tribunal to strike off this demand based on the fact no evidence has been provided to date to the

leaseholders.

It was reasonable to take action for non-payment of the account. the matter of a warranty is irrelevant to the payment of the account The tribunal finds this cost is payable by the Applicant pursuant to the Sixth and Seventh Schedules of the lease. However, the tribunal finds the cost is excessive and unreasonable and reduces it by 50% to £60.00

Balance Brought Forward

£365.84 Statement of Account hasn’t been provided by [COMPANY_32] / [COMPANY_33] to show what constitutes the balance brought forward despite asking multiple times – Email trail from 31st March 2020. I ask the tribunal to decide if the freeholder is responsible in demonstrating the breakdown of what is outstanding. As per the Summary of Tenants’ Rights and obligations it states I have the right to write to the landlord to request a written summary of the costs which make up the service

charges. The summary must;

The account and statement have been provided The tribunal finds the Respondent has provided the relevant documents (albeit late) and this sum is payable by the Applicant.

Cover the last 12 months period used for making up the accounts relating to the service charge ending no later than the date of your request with the landlord to provide this within one month of my request.

Despite multiple requests this breakdown wasn’t and hasn’t been provided. In light of this considering this is past 3 years I request the tribunal to seek this service

charge be written off owing to poor management and lack of a response.

Window Cleaning (2018 -

2019)

£44.79

This charge was disallowed in Full in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 which concluded on 17th April 2023 whereby it was stated the windows are demised to the tenants and are therefore the responsibility of the tenants. This is also evident in the lease. I seek the tribunal to disallow this charge in full.

This is allowed under the terms of the lease The tribunal finds the exterior of the windows are demised to the lessee. (Second Schedule and Sixth Schedule of the lease). Therefore, the Respondent is not entitled and did provide window cleaning services. The tribunal disallows this cost of £44.79 in full.

Accounts Preparation Fee

£34.50 It is evident from the statement of account that [NAME_34] certified their own accounts. This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 whereby it was stated “the form of accounts supplied was simplistic and crude and not in the standard format for annual accounts”. Furthermore, I have highlighted errors multiple times to [NAME_31] which was simply ignored. I seek for the tribunal to decide the reasonableness of this service charge owing to the poor presentation of “own certified” accounts.

£34.50 was paid in full

The lease does allow the managing agent to recover their costs. The fee is low The tribunal finds the Respondent’s managing agents are entitled to a fee for the preparation of accounts in accordance with the Seventh Schedule para. 6 of the lease. Counsel for the Respondent accepted the accounts did not comply with the strict terms of the lease but nevertheless were sufficient for this type of property. In the circumstances the tribunal considers it is reasonable to make a reduction to this charge from the annual fee of £276.00 to £160 per annum thereby requiring the Applicant to pay £24 inclusive of VAT for this item.

Accountant

£45 Similarly, this item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 whereby the charge was disallowed in full

£45 was paid The lease does allow recovery of this Unlike LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290, in this application, evidence of a simple set of accounts prepared by [NAME_35] was provided by the Respondent. Although, the accounts are not in strict conformity with provisions of the Ninth Schedule para. 2 of the lease the tribunal considers the charge is in the circumstances, reasonable and payable by the Applicant.

SCHEDULE

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED [2019/2020]

ITEM COST TENANTS’ COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS THE TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATIONS

Fixing of Broken Gate

£555.12

my share 1/8 =

£69.39 Unnecessary Gate Charge and Poor Workmanship:

I challenge the £555 charge for a works to a wood gate on the leasehold property. No clear evidence exists of the actual work performed, and even if some work was done, its necessity is highly questionable. This gate serves no security purpose and could have been simply disposed of for a fraction of the cost, around £50.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

Question the landlord: Clarify the details and justification for the gate installation.

Seek a full refund: Considering the poor workmanship and lack of purpose, the exorbitant cost is unjustified.

Violation of Lockdown Guidelines:

Furthermore, the installation of the gate and wall repairs were carried out during lockdown, blatantly disregarding social distancing regulations. [COMPANY_32] and [COMPANY_33] demonstrably violated these guidelines. Given the non-urgent nature of the work (no immediate danger to life), I urge the tribunal to:

The works were required as per the invoices and the breakdown

This had no effect with social distancing if that is even relevant The tribunal finds that some works were carried out by the Respondent but the standard and cost of the works is unreasonable.

Therefore, the tribunal reduces this sum to £250 (inclusive of the administration charge and that the Applicant’s share amounts to £31.25.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Impose retrospective fines: Hold both companies accountable for prioritizing profit over public safety during a critical public health crisis.

£69.39 was paid Not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal to impose fines for alleged breach of COVID-19 restrictions.

Works to falling wall

£2088.64

My Share 1/8 >>

£261.08 This charge was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290. The total allowable charge for this works was agreed to £175 +15% VAT = £201.25 Therefore a charge of £201.25/ 8 = £25.16 per leaseholder.

£261.08 was paid

Therefore a refund due of £261.08 - £25.16 = £235.92

No argument has been raised here, cannot just rely on another case.

The invoice is clear The tribunal is satisfied the Respondent carried out works to the wall due to disrepair. However, the tribunal finds the extent of the works does not justify their costs and therefore finds them to be unreasonable.

The tribunal therefore allows the sum of £175 (plus administration costs) for these works making the sum of £21.88 plus 15% management fee payable by the Applicant.

Ground Rent

£100 Ground Rent Payment Dispute and Record Keeping Concerns:

I bring to the tribunal's attention an inconsistency regarding my ground rent payment for September 3rd, 2020. My bank statement clearly shows a payment of

£100 made on that exact date. However, [COMPANY_32] | [COMPANY_33] (hereinafter "Landlord") is still claiming I haven't paid.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

Question the Landlord: Inquire about the basis for their assertion of non-payment, considering the documented evidence of my timely payment.

Scrutinize Landlord's Record Keeping: Investigate the accuracy and reliability of their accounting system, given this discrepancy and any previous concerns about record- keeping.

Furthermore, due to these issues and inconsistencies, I believe:

Management Fees: The 15% management fee on annual invoices is unjustified given the evident deficiencies in property management and record-keeping. I request the tribunal to disallow this fee as its basis is undermined by these administrative shortcomings

Ground rent is not in the remit of the Tribunal

This item is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Window Cleaning (2019 -

2020)

£44.79 I would wish the tribunal disallow this charge in full. This charge has been disallowed in Full in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 which concluded on

17th April 2023 whereby it was stated the windows are demised to the tenants and

Same as above

This sum is disallowed in full for the reasons previously given by the tribunal.

Page 2 of 4

are therefore the responsibility of the tenants. This is also evident in the lease.

Accounts Preparation Fee (2019-2020)

£34.50 It is evident from the statement of account that [NAME_34] certified their own accounts. This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 whereby it was stated “the form of accounts supplied was simplistic and crude and not in the standard format for annual accounts”. Furthermore I have highlighted errors multiple times to [NAME_31] which was simply ignored. I seek for a reduced fee owing to the poor presentation of “own certified” accounts.

£34.50 was paid.

Same as above This sum is reduced to £160 for the reasons previously stated by the tribunal. Therefore, the sum of £24.00 (inclusive of VAT) is payable by the Applicant.

Accountant (2019-2020)

£45 was paid

Same as above This sum is allowed for the reasons previously stated by the tribunal. Therefore, £45.00 is payable by the Applicant.

[NAME_37] (2019 –

2020)

£3802.72 (Annual Policy Fee: £3,256.71, Broker Fee

£50, Management Fee:

£496.01) >> My Share 1/8

>> £475.34

From 2017 to 2018, under previous management, our annual insurance premium per flat was a reasonable £1,631.04. This changed drastically when [COMPANY_32]. took over. In their first year (2018-2019), the cost jumped to £2,074.20 (£259.28 per flat) – a whopping 27% increase. But the true shock came in their second year (2019- 2020), when the annual premium exploded by an astonishing 83% to a jaw-dropping

£3,803!

This exorbitant hike is utterly unjustifiable, especially considering:

Minimal inflation: During this period, UK inflation rates never exceeded 2.52%, a fraction of [NAME_14]'s astronomical increases.

U.K. inflation rate for 2021 was 2.52%, a 1.53% increase from 2020.

U.K. inflation rate for 2020 was 0.99%, a 0.75% decline from 2019.

U.K. inflation rate for 2019 was 1.74%, a 0.55% decline from 2018

Block policy: The policy appears to be a "block policy," offering little individual risk variation and no justification for such drastic and unreasonable charges.

Therefore, I respectfully request the Tribunal to:

Reduce the payable amount per flat to a fair £204 (calculated as £1,631.04 / 8 flats). Order a refund of £271 per flat for the excessive charges levied by [COMPANY_32]. This figure reflects the difference between the inflated premiums charged and the previous year's cost per flat.

Note: This issue has already been disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290. Despite the ongoing dispute, the full amount of £475.34 was paid.

Although the tribunal finds the insurance premiums have increased, the tribunal is satisfied that the insurance has been properly placed with a reputable company. The tribunal finds the Applicant failed to provide any or any persuasive evidence showing that this charge had been unreasonably incurred.

Therefore, the tribunal allows this sum in full in addition to the broker’s fee charged.

Page 3 of 4

SCHEDULE

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED [2021/2022]

Case Reference: LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0265 & LON/00AQ/LSC/2023/0255

Premises: [NAME_1], [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Fire Door

Inspection

(Mar 2022) £91.52

My Share 1/8 >>

£11.44 There are no fire doors within communal areas of the building and as such, a fire door inspection is not chargeable under the lease. All fire doors as entry doors to flats are the responsibility of the leaseholder. There are no fire doors within communal areas of the flat and as such, a fire door inspection is not chargeable under the lease. All fire doors as entry doors to flats are the responsibility of the leaseholder.” This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 and the service charge was disallowed in full.

This service charge was also billed for 2020/2021 – please see this disputed separately.

£11.44 was paid

All doors need to be inspected as is clear in the law and it was reasonable to carry out . this includes front doors of flats The tribunal finds the previous tribunal in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 was unaware of the presence of a fire door in the communal area of the subject property/building. The tribunal finds this charge is reasonable and payable by the Applicant.

Fire Door Service

Visit

(Jul 2022) £149.6

My Share 1/8 >>

£18.70 There are no fire doors within communal areas of the building and as such, a fire door inspection is not chargeable under the lease. All fire doors as entry doors to flats are the responsibility of the leaseholder. There are no fire doors within communal areas of the flat and as such, a fire door inspection is not chargeable under the lease. All fire doors as entry doors to flats are the responsibility of the leaseholder.” Similar to Mar 2022 Fire Door Inspection – this service charge should be disallowed.

This service charge was also invoiced in Dec 2022 and Nov 2023 which I have disputed separately.

£18.70 was paid

Same as above For the reason stated above the tribunal finds this sum is reasonable and payable by the Applicant.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

Outstanding

Ground Rent

(2022) £100 Ground Rent Payment Dispute and Concerns with Record Keeping:

I bring to the tribunal's attention an inconsistency regarding my ground rent payment for 16th January 2023. My bank statement clearly shows a payment of £100 made on that exact date. Despite this documented evidence, [COMPANY_32] | [COMPANY_33] (hereafter "Landlord") claim I haven't paid.

Therefore, I respectfully request the tribunal to:

Question the Landlord's Basis for Non-Payment: Inquire about the rationale behind claiming non-payment when a documented transaction proves otherwise.

Scrutinize Landlord's Accounting Practices: Investigate the accuracy and reliability of their record-keeping system, considering this discrepancy and any previous concerns about record-keeping.

Management Fees are Unjustified: The 15% management fee on annual invoices is unjustifiable given the evident problems with property management

and record-keeping. I request the tribunal to disallow this fee across all invoices billed due to the shortcomings in their administrative duties.

£100 was paid

Same as above This item is not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal

Notice of

Proceedings

(April 2022) £120 Challenge to Notice of Proceedings Fee (£120):

I am contesting the £120 Notice of Proceedings fee levied by the respondent in connection with alleged unpaid service charges. This fee is unreasonable and unjustified for the following reasons:

Disputed Service Charges: I have actively disputed and challenged multiple service charges through proper channels. The respondent is fully aware of these ongoing disputes.

Inadequate Communication: Despite my clear and valid disputes, the respondent's responses have been dismissive and unhelpful. In many instances, they resorted to one-word answers or simply ignored requests for further information. This lack of transparency and engagement regarding contested charges casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of this additional fee. It was reasonable for the landlord to take action due to non-payment of the account, as per the statement sent This sum is disallowed in full and is not payable by the Applicant. The tribunal finds by the date of this demand, the Respondent was fully aware of the Applicant’s ongoing challenge to and requests for information before he made a decision the sums demanded were properly payable.

Relevant Precedent: This situation bears striking similarities to case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290. In that case, the tribunal disallowed a similar fee due to inadequate documentation and communication by the respondent.

Therefore, based on the above points and the precedent set in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290, I respectfully request the tribunal to:

Declare the £120 Notice of Proceedings fee unreasonable and unjustified. Disallow it in full, ensuring accountability for the respondent's lack of transparency and responsiveness in addressing my valid service charge disputes.

Drain Works

(Jul 2022)

[NAME_38] £13,941

My Share 1/8 >>

£1,742.57 Unjustified Drain Works and Lack of Transparency:

[COMPANY_33]. initiated and completed "major" drain works in our block for £13,940 despite our collective objection due to the following concerns:

1. Unnecessary Work:

No blockages, leaks, or smells were reported before the project, raising questions about the necessity of such extensive work.

We objected through email communications, highlighting the lack of justification.

2. Lack of Transparency and Communication:

• Despite requests, no detailed plan or map of the new drain layout was provided before or after the work.

• Residents in the block were not informed about potential disruptions that would likely result from the anticipated work.

• The only information received was from contractors on-site, claiming they were replacing old pipes, without details or justifications for the high cost.

• No video evidence of the completed work was provided, leaving doubts about its completion and quality.

• No detailed plan of the completed work was provided despite repeated requests, further raising concerns about transparency.

• No guarantee document for such a major project was provided, leaving leaseholders without assurance of future functionality.

3. Recurring Issues and Doubts: Please refer to the invoice and reports showing the clear need for this

The tribunal finds the work identified in the Respondent’s invoices was carried out and carried out at a reasonable cost. Although the Applicant objected to the work, no alternative independent report was provided by the Applicant in support of his assertions.

The tribunal finds this sum is reasonable and payable in his share by the Applicant.

Drain works were again billed in 2023, implying the initial work might have been ineffective or poorly done.

We doubt the managing agents or freeholders visited the site to verify the completion and quality of the work.

Request for Tribunal Intervention:

Given the lack of justification, transparency, and evidence of proper completion, we request the tribunal to:

• Declare the £13,940 invoice for drain works unreasonable and unjustified.

• Order a form of reimbursement based on issues highlighted above

• [COMPANY_39] accountable for their lack of communication and transparency throughout the process.

I believe thorough investigation and potential corrective action is necessary to ensure responsible management of our property and fair financial practices.

.

Electrical Visual

Condition Report

(Aug 2022)

Property Run £352.64

My Share 1/8 >> £44.08 This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 and the service charge was disallowed in full.

Please see below excerpt from the decision on case LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290

“The applicant said of this expenditure “Electrical Visual Condition Report was completed by the managing agent. This is not a recognised or recommended piece of work by government or NICEIC. The NICEIC & government state that an annual EICR should be completed by an appointed trained professional and no further works would be required for operation of a safe electrical system.” The respondent said nothing about this report in the schedule passing between the parties. The Tribunal was not satisfied that this was a proper and reasonable expense and therefore disallowed the charge in full”

£44.08 was paid.

This is not governed by the NICEC.

This is the [NAME_41], which is different to the above as is clear on the report and has

been explained to the Applicant previously. The tribunal accepts the Respondent’s explanation for the reasons for this report which did not seem to be put forward in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290.

The tribunal allows this sum in full.

Communal

Electricity Supply Aug 2022 £42.14 Sept 2022 £38.05

The lease does not provide any such apportionment The tribunal finds the Applicant is required to contribute toward communal electricity charge pursuant to provisions of the lease

(Aug 22 & Sept

22) Unjustified Communal Electricity Billing and Mismanagement of Credit:

This dispute concerns excessive and unfair communal electricity charges levied by [COMPANY_33], the current freeholder/managing agent, in violation of previous agreements and transparency expectations.

1. Disregarded Agreement:

It was previously agreed with the former freeholder/managing agent that Flats

1, 2, 5, and 6, not part of the communal area, would be excluded from communal electricity bills. This agreement was repeatedly communicated to [COMPANY_33] upon their takeover, but they disregarded it and continued billing these flats.

2. Lack of Transparency and Justification:

Despite repeated requests made to [NAME_31] via email, the responsible representative at [COMPANY_33], they opted to ignore submission of actual meter readings for the communal areas and instead relied on inaccurate estimates. We received no justification for the substantial charges for minimal communal lighting.

3. Failure to Utilise Energy Bill Relief Scheme:

Furthermore, they ignored inquiries about applying the Energy Bill Relief Scheme, a government initiative offering electricity bill credit, raising concerns about transparency and potential missed savings. This suspicion is reinforced by the high billing amounts despite the potential credit availability.

4. Concealment of Credit and Lack of Proactive Communication:

Only after persistent inquiries culminating in an email on 1st June 2023, did [NAME_31] acknowledge a significant credit in our favour. This crucial information was withheld and required proactive efforts from leaseholders to obtain. Request for Tribunal Intervention:

Given the repeated disregard for agreements, lack of transparency, and questionable handling of energy credits, I request the tribunal to:

• Declare the current communal electricity billing for Flats 1, 2, 5, and 6 unreasonable and unjustified.

• [COMPANY_42] to issue corrected invoices excluding these flats.

These items are not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal in so far as the Applicant seeks remedies that are not within the tribunal’s powers.

The tribunal finds the Respondent has, albeit belatedly provided the Applicant with credits to his account for overpaid electricity charges.

• Investigate the potential failure to utilise the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and, if applicable, [COMPANY_42] to distribute the corresponding credit to leaseholders.

• [COMPANY_39] accountable for their lack of transparency and proactive communication regarding billing and potential savings.

We urge the tribunal to address these concerning practices and ensure fair and transparent management of our property finances.

Admin Costs (24/08/2022) £480 Unreasonable Admin Costs and Lack of Engagement:

I am contesting the £480 admin fee charged by the respondent ([COMPANY_33].) for several reasons:

1. Disputed Service Charges and Inadequate Communication:

I have repeatedly expressed my objections to various service charges directly to [NAME_31], the representative at [COMPANY_33]. However, his responses were consistently dismissive and unhelpful, often limited to one-word answers or incomplete explanations. This lack of proper communication and engagement regarding contested charges raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the admin fee.

2. Timely Dispute and Payment under Protest:

On 29th August 2022, well before the debt collection stage, I filed a case with the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) challenging these charges. This action demonstrates my proactive approach to addressing the disputed charges. Additionally, I made two separate payments under protest on August 29th and

30th 2022, further highlighting my efforts to comply with my financial obligations while still contesting the specific charges.

3. Debt Collection Miscommunication and Unnecessary Charges:

Despite my clear communication and proactive actions, [NAME_31] claimed the file had been transferred to debt collection, implying further unnecessary costs and inconvenience. Notably, I never received any communication from the alleged debt collection agency, neither via email nor post. Upon directly contacting them, I confirmed they had no valid claim against me as I had already initiated dispute of these charges through the FTT. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to take action for recovery of the arrears, see the statement showing the level of these The tribunal finds this sum excessive and unreasonable as the Respondent remained aware of the Applicant’s ongoing demands for clarification of certain service charge demands but failed to provide any or any sufficient explanation before deciding to incur this cost.

The sum is disallowed in full.

4. Relevant Precedent and Unjustified Fee:

This situation bears strong / same resemblance to case reference

LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290, where the FTT disallowed a similar admin charge due to inadequate communication and unproven necessity. Given this precedent and the clear lack of engagement and justification in my case, I firmly believe the £480 admin fee is unreasonable and unjustified.

Request for Tribunal Intervention:

Therefore, I respectfully request the tribunal to:

• Declare the £480 admin fee unreasonable and unjustified.

• Disallow it in full, aligning with the precedent set in

LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 and upholding fair accounting practices.

• [COMPANY_39] accountable for its lack of communication and transparency throughout the service charge dispute process.

[NAME_29] (24/08/2022) £216 Same as Admin costs - This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 and the charge was disallowed in full.

It was not unreasonable for the landlord to take action for recovery of the arrears, see the statement showing the level of these This sum is disallowed in full for the reasons stated above.

[NAME_29] (24/08/2022) £474 Same as [NAME_29] - This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 and the charge was disallowed in full. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to take action for recovery of the arrears, see the statement showing the level of these This sum disallowed in full for the reasons state above.

[NAME_29] (01/09/2022) £630 [NAME_29]:

I am contesting the £630 fee charged by the respondent ([COMPANY_33].) for Debt Recovery Agency ([NAME_29]) lender correspondence. This charge is unreasonable and unjustified for several reasons:

1. Unnecessary Contact with Lender: It was not unreasonable for the landlord to take action for recovery of the arrears, see the statement showing the level of these This sum is disallowed in full for the reasons stated above.

The respondent, without justification, contacted my lender regarding disputed service charges and associated fees. This action was unnecessary and unwarranted because:

• I actively disputed the service charges with the respondent, expressing my concerns and objections.

• I proactively filed a case with the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) on August 29th, 2022, addressing these disputes through the proper legal channels.

• I directly informed my lender about the ongoing dispute and FTT proceedings, ensuring they were aware of the situation.

• Therefore, engaging the [NAME_29] to contact my lender was redundant and served no valid purpose, especially considering the existing communication and legal action.

2. Lack of Communication and Transparency:

Throughout the service charge dispute, the respondent's communication has been dismissive and unhelpful. My attempts to address concerns were met with poor responses, often lacking necessary details and explanations. This lack of transparency further undermines the justification for involving the [NAME_29] and incurring additional costs.

3. Misuse of Debt Recovery Agency:

Utilising the [NAME_29] to contact my lender before exhausting proper communication channels and exploring alternative solutions misrepresents the nature of the dispute. It creates unnecessary pressure and potentially violates fair debt collection practices.

Request for Tribunal Intervention:

Based on the above points and the ongoing FTT proceedings, I respectfully request the tribunal to:

• Declare the £630 [NAME_29] unreasonable and unjustified.

• Disallow it in full, recognising the duplicative and unnecessary nature of the agency's involvement.

• [COMPANY_39] accountable for their lack of communication and transparency in resolving the service charge dispute.

[NAME_29]

(16/09/2022) £636 [NAME_29] and Abusive Practices:

I am contesting the £636 fee charged by the respondent ([COMPANY_33].) for Debt Recovery Agency ([NAME_29]) claim processing. This charge is entirely unjustified and an abusive tactic for several reasons:

1. Disregard for Existing Legal Proceedings:

Despite informing the [NAME_29] on September 16th, 2022, about my ongoing FirstTier Tribunal (FTT) case regarding the disputed service charges, they disregarded this information and proceeded to file a claim with the county court. This deliberate action demonstrates a blatant disregard for the existing legal process and serves only to intimidate and inconvenience.

2. Pattern of Misusing Legal System and Targeting Leaseholders:

This behaviour is not an isolated incident, but rather a systematic strategy employed by [COMPANY_33]. and the [NAME_29] against multiple leaseholders. Their tactic of involving the [NAME_29] and initiating unnecessary legal proceedings before exhausting proper communication and dispute resolution mechanisms is abusive and predatory. By creating financial pressure and fear of litigation, they seek to coerce leaseholders into unfair settlements of contested charges.

3. Lack of Justification for Additional Costs:

The FTT proceedings already address the disputed service charges. Involving the [NAME_29] and filing a separate claim in county court creates duplicative and unnecessary costs. This fee is unjustified and only serves to burden leaseholders further.

4. Request for Tribunal Intervention:

Therefore, I respectfully request the tribunal to:

• Declare the £636 [NAME_29] unreasonable and unjustified. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to take action for recovery of the arrears, see the statement showing the level of these The tribunal finds it was unreasonable for the Respondent to pursue legal action against the Applicant due to the ongoing dispute, complaints and requests for further information by the Applicant.

Further, on or around 29 August 2022 the Applicant made this application to the First-tier Tribunal of which the Respondent was made aware.

• Disallow it in full, recognizing its duplicative nature and serving as a consequence for disregarding the ongoing FTT proceedings.

• [COMPANY_39]. and the [NAME_29] accountable for their abusive practices and predatory tactics towards leaseholders.

• Consider broader action or sanctions to prevent similar tactics from being used against other leaseholders in the future.

Admin Costs (16/09/2022) £480 Same as the previous Admin cost – However I believe this was billed for the [NAME_29].

Request for Tribunal Intervention:

Therefore, I respectfully request the tribunal to:

• Declare the £480 admin fee unreasonable and unjustified.

• Disallow it in full, aligning with the precedent set in

It was not unreasonable for the landlord to take action for recovery of the arrears, see the statement showing the level of these This sum is disallowed for the reasons stated above.

Insurance

Reinstatement

Cost Assessment

(9th Sept 2022)

JMC £110.63 Unreasonable and Duplicative Insurance Reinstatement Cost Assessment:

I am contesting the charge of £110.63 for an Insurance Reinstatement Cost Assessment for several reasons:

1. Duplicate Charge and Precedent:

This specific assessment was previously conducted in January 2021 and the associated service charge was disallowed by the tribunal in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290. Since then, there have been no significant changes to the building that would justify requiring another assessment. This repeated charge is therefore duplicative and unreasonable.

2. Lack of Transparency and Communication:

I never received any prior notification about this new assessment, neither via email nor post. The charge only appeared later in the year on the statement of account and the supporting invoice was sent thereafter upon my request. This lack of transparency and proactive communication from [COMPANY_33].

regarding the service charge raises serious concerns about their management practices. The previous survey was carried out in 2019. RICS guidance is for this to be carried out every 3 years (desktop survey if no changes) Although the tribunal notes the decision of the previous tribunal in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290, this tribunal finds it was reasonable for the Respondent to carry out a reinstatement survey at this time particularly in light of increased building and insurance costs post COVID-19.

3. Unjustified Cost and Lack of Material Change:

With no significant changes to the building, the need for another assessment remains unclear. This raises questions about the justification for the cost and suggests potential mismanagement.

4. Request for Tribunal Intervention:

• Declare the £110.63 Insurance Reinstatement Cost Assessment unreasonable and unjustified.

• Disallow it in full due to its duplicative nature, lack of transparency, and questionable need.

• [COMPANY_39] accountable for their poor communication and potentially wasteful practices regarding this service charge.

[NAME_40]

(03/10/2022) £72.70 [NAME_40] 2018 [NAME_28]:

I object to the £72.70 [NAME_40] charge for several reasons:

1. Double Billing and Precedent:

This charge relates to issues with the building's electrical system. However, this was already addressed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290, where the

tribunal deemed a 50% reduction of the original charges to be fair compensation for the service. Therefore, any further billing related to this electrical issue constitutes double billing and is entirely unreasonable.

2. Potential Negligence and Unclear Need for Emergency Repairs:

Furthermore, in light of the major [NAME_28] carried out in 2018 at a cost of approximately £3,800, it is unfathomable how significant failings could have emerged again just four years later. This raises serious concerns about the quality and effectiveness of the previous work, possibly implying negligence on the part of the respondent.

Please refer to the invoice and the report which is quite clear The tribunal allows this cost in full as it is supported by invoices provided by the Respondent. The tribunal finds the requirement to monitor and maintain the communal electricals supply is an ongoing concern and therefore it is reasonable to incur recurrent costs.

3. Request for Investigation and Potential Refund:

Given the unclear need for emergency repairs and the potential for inadequate 2018 works,

I urge the tribunal to:

• Declare the current £72.70 [NAME_40] charge unreasonable and unjustified.

• Investigate the effectiveness and quality of the [NAME_28] conducted in 2018.

• Consider holding [COMPANY_33] accountable for potential negligence and poor workmanship, potentially leading to a refund of the £3,800 paid in 2018.

£72.70 was paid

[NAME_40] (03/10/2022) £146.93 [NAME_43]: Justification and Transparency Concerns:

While I disagree with the tribunal's ruling in case reference

LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 regarding the [NAME_43] charge

(originally charged at £146.93), I am currently not challenging the £73.46 (50% reduction) deemed payable by the tribunal. However, I raise serious concerns about:

1. Lack of Transparency and Evidence:

Despite repeated requests from multiple leaseholders, [COMPANY_33]. (the respondent) failed to provide the invoice and supporting documents justifying the initial [NAME_43] charge. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the legitimacy and necessity of the service.

2. Circumventing Consultation Process:

Furthermore, I believe [COMPANY_33]. deliberately split the [NAME_40] charges into three separate invoices (Emergency Repairs, Standard Audit, and Advanced Audit) to avoid triggering the Section 20 consultation process. This suggests an attempt to bypass regulations and extract money from leaseholders without proper scrutiny. Please refer to the invoice and

the report which is quite clear

The report is attached

Despite being explained to the Applicant they do not seem to comprehend what the [NAME_44] is This sum is allowed in full for the reasons stated above.

3. Potential Overcharging and Abuse of Power:

This pattern of questionable behaviour casts doubts on the justification for the original [NAME_43] charge and suggests a potential attempt to exploit leaseholders by maximizing revenue without ensuring transparency or accountability.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of transparency and evidence surrounding the [NAME_43].

• Scrutinize whether the splitting of invoices was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Section 20 consultation process.

• Consider potential consequences for [COMPANY_33].'s questionable practices, potentially including requiring full refunds for the service if deemed unjustified.

£146.93 was paid

Inventory Report (06/10/2022) £10.62 Unjustified Inventory Report Charge and Unnecessary Billing:

I am contesting the £10.62 Inventory Report charge for several reasons:

1. Precedent and Unclear Justification:

This charge was previously disallowed in full by the tribunal in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 due to its unclear justification. Additionally, the service charge description offered when one of the leaseholders questioned this on email ("to provide full report and recommendations to 4 flats at £15 per flat") suggests it was solely related to four specific flats within the communal block, not to Flats 1, 2, 5, and 6, which should be excluded from communal area charges.

2. Unnecessary Billing and Lack of Benefit:

Therefore, billing Flats 1, 2, 5, and 6 for a service intended for other units constitutes unnecessary and unfair charging. I received no benefit from this inventory report and should not be held financially responsible for it.

It is not unreasonable to carry

out an inspection of the property This charge is allowed. The tribunal accepts it is not unreasonable for the Respondent to carry out an inspection/inventory of the subject building.

The tribunal finds the Applicant is required under the terms of the lease to contribute towards the costs incurred in communal area.

3. Request for Tribunal Intervention:

Given the precedent set in the previous case and the lack of justification for including our flats in the charge, I respectfully request the tribunal to:

• Declare the £10.62 Inventory Report charge unreasonable and unjustified.

• Order the respondent ([COMPANY_33].) to issue a full refund for this charge.

• Hold them accountable for their unclear billing practices and ensure proper exclusion of non-applicable charges for Flats 1, 2, 5, and 6 in the future.

The tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to intervene in the manner the Applicant requests. The tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to determing the liability to pay and the reasonableness of service charges and administration costs.

Additional

Insurance

(01/12/2022) £18.23 I have been charged £18.23 for additional [NAME_37]. The invoice, received via email, cites an increase in the sum insured based on a surveyor's recommendation. However, no supporting documentation (such as the surveyor's report) was provided to justify this additional expense.

I request that the tribunal determine the reasonableness of this service charge, considering both the lack of supporting evidence and [NAME_34]' inadequate communication regarding the matter.

This has all been provided previously and is attached again The tribunal allows this sum in full as it is satisfied the Respondent has supported this expense by the disclosure of relevant invoices.

[NAME_40]

(06/12/2022) £138.06 As stated under [NAME_40] – in my opinion a [NAME_45] consultation should have been sent out considering the total amount for Emergency Repairs, Std Audit and Advanced Audit exceeded threshold of £250 for [NAME_45] consultation. I ask the tribunal to decide the reasonableness of this service charge

As above The tribunal disallows this sum as the Respondent has failed to explain or justify its costs.

[NAME_46] &

Service

[NAME_46]

(6th Dec 2022)

£60.18

£51.33

£7.08 Multiple Charges for Identical Work:

I object to three separate invoices (£60.18, £51.33, and £7.08) for [NAME_46], Service, and Test, all allegedly performed on the same day. This redundancy is unreasonable and unjustified. The service itself should encompass the test, eliminating the need for separate charges.

Frequency of Assessments:

Furthermore, this charge contradicts a previous tribunal ruling

(LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290) disallowing a similar charge on August 3rd, 2021.

That ruling established a typical frequency of three years for such assessments.

This repeated billing clearly violates the established timeframe. These are all different services as the invoices show and are all required by law The tribunal finds the costs of these services are excessive for this small block of eight flats.

The tribunal allows 50% of each of these 3 charges.

Exorbitant Fees for Routine Checks:

I also challenge the inflated costs for individual equipment checks. Charging £50 for a detector and £25 for an emergency light is excessive, especially considering these are already inspected and billed for monthly. This frequency and pricing for routine checks are unreasonable and exploitative.

Requesting Tribunal Intervention:

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Rule on the legitimacy of multiple charges for the same work performed on the same day.

• Clarify the appropriate frequency for [NAME_46] assessments based on established precedents.

• Determine the reasonableness of the exorbitant fees charged for routine equipment checks.

[NAME_28]

(7th Dec 2022)

[NAME_40] £112.40 I dispute the £112.40 charge for "[NAME_28]" outlined in an invoice from [NAME_34]. The invoice claims to be from [NAME_40], but despite my email requests, no supporting invoice or breakdown of services has been provided by the supplier. This lack of transparency makes it impossible to understand what this charge is for.

Furthermore, this charge follows another emergency [NAME_40] invoice for [NAME_28] in October 2022, which already cost £72 per leaseholder. This frequent recurrence of significant electrical work raises concerns about its necessity and the overall reasonableness of these charges.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of supporting documentation for the "[NAME_28]" charge.

• Determine the purpose and justification for these repeated and costly [NAME_28].

• Assess the reasonableness of the £112.40 charge in light of the prior expense and the absence of clear information.

Please refer to the invoice and supporting documentation The tribunal disallows this cost as it appears to be a duplication of charges incurred only months previously and the Respondent has failed to explain why these further works were required.

[NAME_28]

(29th Dec 2022)

[NAME_47] £38.94 [NAME_28](£38.94):

I object to the £38.94 charge for "[NAME_28]" for several reasons:

No explanation or invoice: I received no supporting documentation, either via email or post, explaining the nature or justification for these works. This lack of transparency is unacceptable.

Potential redundancy: This charge appears to coincide with the disputed "Rubber Mat Installation" charge, potentially indicating overlapping or unnecessary work on the same day.

Reasonableness and excessiveness: Given the recent history of multiple [NAME_28] already carried out, this additional charge raises concerns about its necessity and overall reasonableness.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of transparency and documentation for this charge.

• Clarify the purpose and justification for this additional electrical work, especially in relation to the "Rubber Mat Installation" charge.

• Assess the charge's reasonableness in light of the existing electrical work history.

As above The tribunal disallows this cost in full as the Respondent has failed to explain why these works were required when major [NAME_28] were carried out previously.

Rubber Mat

Installation

(29/12/2022)

[NAME_47] £79.65

Rubber Mat Installation: Unreasonable Cost and Poor Workmanship

I dispute the £79.65 charge for "Rubber Mat Installation" for several reasons:

Excessive cost:

The invoice indicates a 1000v Electrical Safety Rubber Mat, likely around 2 meters long. Assuming an average cost of £36 per meter, the material cost should be roughly £72.

However, we were billed a total of £637.20 (£540 + £97.20 management fee). This represents a significant markup of over 800% on the estimated material cost.

This was required as per the [NAME_48] survey The tribunal allows 50% of this sum as although the provision of a rubber mat was required, it is excessive in amount and therefore unreasonable.

Poor workmanship: The mat has been folded up the wall, compromising its long-term functionality and safety. This likely necessitates future repairs, leading to additional costs.

Lack of oversight: The managing agent seems to have neglected questioning the poor workmanship, raising concerns about their due diligence.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Question the respondent on the cost breakdown of the installation, including material and labour charges.

• Assess the reasonableness of the total charge in light of the estimated material cost and standard market rates.

• Evaluate the quality of the workmanship and determine if it meets acceptable standards.

• Hold the managing agent accountable for their lack of oversight in ensuring proper installation.

I believe a reasonable fee for this installation should not exceed a total of £120 - £150 i.e £15 - £19 per flat, considering the estimated material cost and standard labour rates.

Wall Repair

Works

(29/12/2022)

[NAME_47] £147.50 Wall Repair Works: [NAME_45]

I dispute the £147.50 charge for "Wall Repair Works" for several reasons:

1. Lack of transparency:

• I never received any notification (email or post) regarding this service charge.

• No supporting documentation was provided with the invoice, explaining the nature or justification for the work.

• When another leaseholder requested more information, they received no response from the managing agent.

2. [NAME_45] violation:

This charge coincides with other December 2022 invoices for works by [NAME_47] under different invoice numbers. Please refer to the invoice

Was separate to other works This sum together with the costs of the various repair works below are disallowed.

The tribunal finds the wall works were either not done at all or were done particularly badly having regard to the evidence/photos provide.

Collectively, these works appear to constitute significant alterations requiring a Section 20 consultation with leaseholders, which seems to have been deliberately avoided by splitting the invoices.

3. Poor workmanship:

Upon inspecting the communal walls where I believe this work was done, I observed very poor quality of workmanship. This raises concerns about the need for repairs and the overall value for money.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of transparency surrounding this charge, including the absence of notification and supporting documentation.

• Determine if the splitting of [NAME_47] invoices was an attempt to circumvent the [NAME_45] consultation requirement.

• Assess the quality of workmanship and whether it meets acceptable standards.

• Evaluate the reasonableness of the £147.50 charge considering the lack of information, potential [NAME_45] violation, and apparent poor workmanship.

Various Repair

Works

(29/12/2022)

[NAME_47] £146.03 Various Repair Works: [NAME_45]

I dispute the £146.03 charge for "Various Repair Works" for several reasons:

1. Lack of transparency:

2. [NAME_45] violation:

This charge coincides with other December 2022 invoices for works by [NAME_47] under different invoice numbers.

Please refer to the invoice

Was separate to other works

3. Poor workmanship:

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

Evaluate the reasonableness of the £146.03 charge considering the lack of information, potential [NAME_45] violation, and apparent poor workmanship.

Fire Door

Inspection

(29/12/2022) £26.55 There are no fire doors within communal areas of the building and as such, a fire door inspection is not chargeable under the lease. All fire doors as entry doors to flats are the responsibility of the leaseholder.” This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 for year 2020/2021 and the service charge was disallowed in full.

I ask the tribunal to seek the same decision for 2021/2022 and to instruct the respondent that there should not be any more invoices billed going forward relating to Fire Door Inspection.

Same as above The tribunal allows 50% of this charge having regard to the minimal inspection required.

[NAME_37]

(29/12/2022) £730.26 I strongly protest to the £730.26 charge for "[NAME_37] 2022 - 2023" for several reasons:

1. Exorbitant Price Hike:

The insurance cost has risen dramatically since [COMPANY_33]. took over management. As documented in my 2020 service charge dispute, the annual premium was approximately £1,500 under previous management. This The quote is not like for like.

There are various inaccuracies The tribunal allows this cost in full. The tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant has demonstrated the Respondent has placed the insurance unreasonably despite it being more expensive than the quote obtained by the Applicant.

represents a steep increase of over 300% in just a few years.

2. Lack of Transparency:

Requests for the [NAME_37] certificate, made on multiple occasions and reiterated in my detailed email to [NAME_31] on January 11, 2023, remain unacknowledged and unanswered. This lack of transparency regarding a significant expense raises serious concerns.

3. Alternative Quote Obtained:

I proactively contacted several brokers and received a competitive quote of £2166.21 on May 31, 2023. This translates to only £271 per leaseholder, significantly lower than the £730.26 charged by [COMPANY_33].

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Querry the reasons behind the substantial increase in [NAME_37] cost since [COMPANY_33]. took over management.

• Consider the alternative quote I obtained and assess the reasonableness of the current charge in light of this evidence.

• Take appropriate action to ensure fair and transparent practices when procuring [NAME_37] for the future.

VAT on all Invoices Double VAT Charging: Illegal Practice and Request for Refund

I strongly object to [COMPANY_33].'s practice of applying double VAT charges on all invoices, as it appears to be illegal and unjustified.

Here's a breakdown of their current billing method (example):

Original Invoice:

Base cost: £1000

VAT (20%): £200

Total: £1200

Management Fee:

15% of the total invoice (£1200) = £180 There has been no double charging The tribunal finds that VAT is chargeable where the recipient is VAT registered.

The tribunal finds the management fee is excessive. It finds the service provided to the Applicant to be on the poor side. The Respondent has a tendency to incur [NAME_49] costs unnecessarily, rather than providing the Applicant with the answers sought to his reasonable questions the makeup of the service charges and other costs demanded.

Therefore, the tribunal allows a management fee of £250 per annum for this service charge year.

The tribunal also allows the managing agent to charge a 15% fee in respect of major works projects.

However the RICS Guide specifies the charges of the managing agent should be fixed and therefore the tribunal disallows the 15% added to the invoices by the managing agent as it finds thus is both excessive and unreasonable.

VAT (20%) on the management fee (£180) = £36

Final Charge to Leaseholders:

Original invoice (including VAT): £1200

Management fee (including VAT): £216

Total payable: £1416

This results in leaseholders effectively paying VAT twice:

£200 on the original invoice

£36 on the management fee itself

This practice is highly questionable:

VAT is typically applied only once to the final cost of a service or product. Charging VAT on a fee that is already inclusive of VAT constitutes double taxation.

It creates an unfair financial burden on leaseholders.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Determine the legality of [COMPANY_33].'s double VAT charging practice.

• If found to be illegal, order a full refund of all double VAT charges paid by leaseholders since [COMPANY_32]. took over the freehold.

• Impose a penalty fee on [COMPANY_33]. as reimbursement to leaseholders if their practice is deemed fraudulent and perhaps raise this particular issue to the Upper Tribunal.

• I urge the tribunal to investigate this matter thoroughly and protect leaseholders from unfair financial practices.

SCHEDULE

DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED [2023]

The determinations in this Scott Schedule benefit only the lessees of Flats 2 and 6 as the lessee of [NAME_2] has the benefit of the tribunal’s decision in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 which included items of service charge incurred/demanded in 2023.

ITEM COST TENANTS’ COMMENTS

FLAT 6 COMMENTS LANDLORD’S COMMENTS THE TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATIONS

Communal

Electricity

Supply (Jan

2023, Apr

2023, May

2023)

£54.09

£52.46

£52.57 Unjustified Communal Electricity Billing and Mismanagement of Credit:

This dispute concerns excessive and unfair communal electricity charges levied by [COMPANY_33], the current managing agent, in violation of previous agreements and transparency expectations.

1. Disregarded Agreement:

It was previously agreed with the former freeholder/managing agent that Flats 1, 2, 5, and 6, not part of the communal area, would be excluded from communal electricity bills. This agreement was repeatedly communicated to [COMPANY_33] upon their takeover, but they disregarded it and continued billing these flats.

2. Lack of Transparency and Justification:

3. Failure to Utilise Energy Bill Relief Scheme:

Same applies Flat 6. The lease does not differentiate between these areas.

The invoices do take into account any discounts and they are all clearly detailed on the invoices

The credit was only obtained following extensive correspondence and was notified once we received the credit notes The tribunal finds the excessive credits have been refunded to the lessees and that all lessees are required to contribute to communal electricity charges in accordance with the terms of their lease.

Case Reference: LON/00AQ/LSC/2023/0487 & (LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0265 & LON/00AQ/LSC/2023/0255)

Premises: 2 & 6 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. Document Updated 12.01.24 with ‘Flat 6 Comments’.

Only after persistent inquiries culminating in an email on 1st June 2023, did [NAME_31] acknowledge a significant credit in our favour. This crucial information was withheld and required proactive efforts from leaseholders to obtain.

Request for Tribunal Intervention:

• [COMPANY_42] to issue corrected invoices excluding these flats. • Investigate the potential failure to utilise the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and, if applicable, [COMPANY_42] to distribute the corresponding credit to leaseholders.

I urge the tribunal to address these concerning practices and ensure fair and transparent management of our property finances.

[NAME_50]

(Feb 2023)

[NAME_47] £265.50 Unclear and Excessive Fire Door Replacement Charge

I object to the £265.50 service charge for "[NAME_50]" for several reasons:

1. Lack of Transparency and Evidence:

The invoice provided only suggests potential work, but lacks details about the actual work performed and photographic evidence. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the justification for the charge.

2. [NAME_45]:

The total service charge exceeds the £250 threshold requiring an [NAME_45] consultation with leaseholders. While the respondent claims the cost per leaseholder was below £250, their reasoning about exempting management fees appears questionable. This suggests a potential attempt to circumvent

Same applies Flat 6. No evidence of any

alternative quotes

The cost is a reasonable cost for the works carried out The tribunal allows 50% of these charges.

The tribunal is satisfied that these charges were incurred but is not satisfied that the cost is reasonable.

the consultation requirement by splitting costs.

3. Uncompetitive Quote and Overinflated Costs:

No evidence of competitive quotes was presented.

The estimated material cost is between £88 and £160, while estimated labour cost is around £120, resulting in a maximum cost of £35 per flat. This is significantly lower than the actual charge of £231 per flat.

4. Unresponsiveness and Unfulfilled Promises:

The respondent initially promised to investigate the cost based on alternative quotes but provided no further response. This further undermines trust and transparency.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of transparency and evidence surrounding the actual work performed.

• Determine if splitting work to avoid [NAME_45] consultation is a legitimate practice.

• Review the reasonableness of the charge in light of the estimated material and labour costs compared to the actual invoice.

• Hold the respondent accountable for their lack of responsiveness and unfulfilled promises.

• I strongly believe that the current service charge is unreasonable and lacks proper justification. I urge the tribunal to thoroughly investigate this matter and ensure fair and transparent practices for all leaseholders.

Estimated Breakdown as follows

• Fire rated Door – Between £70 - £125

• Intumescent strip – Between £3 - £10

• Lock – Between £10 - £17

• Hinge – Between £5 - £8

• Therefore, total material costs between £88 - £160

• Labour cost – Half day to fit the above – at £30/ hour – estimate this to be maximum of £120

This equates to a total maximum cost of £280. Meaning we have been billed an extra £1,844 (£231/ flat)

Waste

Removal

(Mar 2023)

[NAME_47] £14.16

Unjust Waste Removal Charge for Flat 3 Panel: Request for Tribunal Intervention

I object to the £14.16 service charge for "Waste Removal" related to a panel from Flat 3 for several reasons:

1. Improper Responsibility Assignment:

The panel came down within the private garden of Flat 3, as confirmed by the resident and their landlord.

According to the lease terms, each flat is responsible for disposing of their own waste within their designated private areas.

There is no justification for charging other leaseholders for the disposal of waste originating from a specific flat's private space.

2. Lack of Evidence for Communal Area Disposal:

The respondent claims the panel was dumped in the communal areas, but no evidence (photos, witness statements, etc.) has been provided to support this claim.

Without concrete evidence, charging all leaseholders for the removal of waste ostensibly from Flat 3's private garden appears unfair and unsubstantiated.

3. Proper Responsibility Should Lie with Flat 3 Leaseholder:

The resident of Flat 3 and their landlord (leaseholder) should be responsible for arranging and handling the disposal of the panel from their own private garden.

Same applies Flat 6. We had to arrange for the removal of items dumped in the property.

This is therefore a communal responsibility.

There is nothing in the lease that says that this flat should not be responsible to contribute to this expense and it was part of maintenance of the property The tribunal finds the costs of these works are liable to be paid by the lessee of Flat 3 only, as they appear to be solely related to that flat and do not fall within the items of service charge to which the Applicants are required to contribute.

There is no reason to shift this responsibility and associated cost onto all leaseholders through the service charge.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of evidence supporting the panel's presence in the communal areas.

• Reaffirm the lease terms regarding individual flat responsibility for waste disposal within their own private spaces.

• Declare the £14.16 service charge for this waste removal unreasonable and unfair to all other leaseholders, excluding the occupant of Flat 3.

• Direct the respondent to identify and charge the responsible party for the panel's disposal, which should be the leaseholder of Flat 3.

[NAME_28]

(Mar 2023)

Property Run £86.38 [NAME_28] (£86.38): Excessive Costs and Lack of Transparency

I object to the £86.38 service charge for "[NAME_28]" for several reasons:

1. Exorbitant Light Replacement Costs:

The invoice claims to replace two failed LED lights, with each replacement costing a staggering £135. Considering readily available microwavecontrolled LED lights for around £40 each, this represents a mark-up of over 230%.

This extreme price hike seems unjustified and lacks transparency.

2. Questionable Explanation and Lack of Evidence:

While the respondent mentions additional charges like WEEE disposal, Lead asset battery recycling charge and warranty (Upgraded 1–5 year warranty period on materials) , no evidence (invoices, receipts) has been provided to support these claims.

This raises concerns about the validity of these additional charges and the overall cost justification.

3. Unclear Certificate Issuance and Duplication of Services:

Same applies Flat 6. The works are clearly detailed on the invoice.

There was a need to issue a minor works certificate as per the electrical regulations.

The invoice clearly breaks down the time spent on scene and the

material costs The tribunal is not satisfied that these works should have been reasonably required at this point or are reasonable in cost.

Therefore, the tribunal allows 50% of the cost charged.

The invoice mentions an "Issue of minor [NAME_28] certificate," but the purpose and necessity of this document are unclear, especially considering past [NAME_28] and tests.

The annual electrical test conducted in December 2022 should already cover routine checks and any minor issues. Duplicate or unnecessary services shouldn't be charged to leaseholders.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the excessive cost of replacement LED lights and demand clear justification with supporting evidence.

• Verify the legitimacy of the additional charges claimed by the respondent and request proof of payment for specific services.

• Clarify the purpose and necessity of the issued "minor [NAME_28] certificate" and avoid charging for redundant services.

• Ultimately, assess the reasonableness of the £86.38 charge in light of the aforementioned concerns and determine a fair price reflecting the actual work performed and market rates.

Electrical

Certificate -

ELECTRICAL

INSTALLATION

CONDITION

REPORT

(Mar 2023)

Property Run

£24.78

Unjustified Duplicate Charge and Questionable Report: Requesting Tribunal Intervention

I strongly object to the £24.78 service charge for "Electrical Installation Condition Report" for several reasons:

1. Duplicate Charge:

This service charge appears identical to the "Electrical Visual Condition

Report" disputed and disallowed in full by the tribunal in August 2022 under case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290.

Charging for the same service twice within a short period constitutes an unjustified and unfair expense for leaseholders.

2. Inconsistent and Questionable Report:

The report, prepared by the same individual ([NAME_51]), inexplicably shows two different ages for the electrical installations: 15 years in the first report and 10 years in the second, a discrepancy within a mere 7 months. This inconsistency raises serious concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the report, questioning [NAME_54]'s knowledge and skill in preparing such documentation.

3. Lack of Due Diligence by Managing Agent:

Employing a tradesman who produces inconsistent and potentially inaccurate reports indicates a lack of due diligence by the managing agent in selecting and vetting qualified professionals.

This raises concerns about the overall quality of services provided and financial accountability towards leaseholders.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Uphold the previous decision disallowing the duplicate "Electrical Visual Condition Report" charge.

• Question the validity and accuracy of the current "Electrical Installation Condition Report" considering the inconsistencies and [NAME_54]'s conflicting statements.

• Investigate the managing agent's due diligence process in selecting and vetting qualified professionals for such reports.

• Ultimately, declare the £24.78 service charge unreasonable and unjustified due to its duplicity and questionable report quality.

Same applies Flat 6. This is completely separate.

There is a need to carry out an inspection of the property on an annual basis, by a qualified electrician.

The invoice details the needs for this and provides the certificate The tribunal finds these costs reasonable and payable by the Applicants.

3. Lack of Due Diligence by Managing Agent:

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

[NAME_55]

[NAME_56]

(Apr 2023) £21.24

£21.24 [NAME_46] of Transparency

I object to the service charges for "[NAME_46]" and "[NAME_46]" for several reasons:

1. Lack of Transparency and Unresponsiveness:

Despite multiple requests, no invoices were provided for either the [NAME_55] or the [NAME_56], raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

Same applies Flat 6. Invoices are attached

and are quite clear

The sign installed was a bespoke fire poster for the property and it is not an unreasonable cost The tribunal finds these costs are reasonable and payable by the Applicants.

The lack of response to inquiries further adds to the lack of clarity and raises doubts about the legitimacy of these charges.

2. Exorbitant Costs for Signs:

Charging £21.24 per flat for [NAME_56] appears grossly inflated considering their readily available market price of around £6 per flat. This represents an unjustified mark-up of over 250%.

This price hike lacks justification and seems to unfairly burden leaseholders with excessive costs.

3. Duplicate Charge and Potential Free Installation:

The 2018 invoice (FA11807) demonstrates that identical fire exit signs were installed free of charge by the supplier.

Charging for the same service again within a short timeframe raises concerns about potential duplicate charges and unfair financial burdening of leaseholders.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of transparency surrounding the invoices and demand their immediate provision for proper scrutiny.

• Hold the managing agent accountable for their unresponsiveness to inquiries and potential lack of due diligence in cost negotiation.

• Reassess the reasonableness of the [NAME_48] sign costs considering the significant mark-up and readily available market prices.

• Investigate the possibility of duplicate charges for the [NAME_56] and determine if the 2018 installation should be considered in this context.

• Ultimately, declare the current charges for the test and signs unreasonable and unfair based on the lack of transparency, unjustified mark-up, and potential duplicate charges.

[NAME_58]

£15.58

£23.82

£23.01

£23.[ADDRESS] Charges: Trespass and Responsibility Concerns

The areas are not demised in the lease and are therefore maintained by the The tribunal finds these works are reasonable and their cost payable by the Applicants.

(May 2023)

(Jun 2023) (Jul 2023)

(Aug 2023)

[NAME_57] I strongly object to the service charges for "[NAME_58]" in May, June, and July 2023 for several reasons:

1. Trespass and Unnecessary Service:

The front hedges and the gardens for the ground floor flats have always been maintained by residents and individual leaseholders, respectively. These areas do not fall under the responsibility of the general garden maintenance service.

Therefore, the gardeners' activities in these areas constitute unwarranted trespass and the subsequent charges are unjustified and unfair.

2. Repeated Charges for Unnecessary Service:

The service charges appear for three consecutive months (May, June, July) despite the lack of responsibility for these areas. This raises concerns about unnecessary and duplicate charges for services not rendered on the relevant sections.

3. Lack of Transparency and Unresponsive Communication:

My inquiries regarding the charges directed to [NAME_31] resulted in unsatisfactory responses and a mere mention of "monthly invoices" without addressing the specific concerns about trespass and responsibility.

This lack of transparency and responsiveness further strengthens the case for questioning the legitimacy and justification of these charges.

4. Comparison to Personal Gardener Costs:

My personal gardener charges me £28 per visit, lasting a maximum of 1 hour, significantly lower than the service charge amounts. This further highlights the potential overpricing of the current charges. Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the trespass and responsibility concerns regarding the charged garden areas.

• Consider the lack of transparency and responsiveness to my inquiries. Same applies Flat 6.

To add: The large garden demised to Flat 6 as shown within the Lease Plan is bounded by hedges that we planted in 1999. The Landlord continues to trim these private hedges (aggressively back to the bare stems damaging them) and recharging via the service charge to all Leaseholders despite repeatedly being advised we personally fully maintain these at our

direct cost and

responsibility.

We have offered to meet the Landlord and their agents on site to run through the Lease provisions and familiarise them with the site but requests are ignored.

landlord as required

under the lease

Invoices attached The tribunal finds the Respondent is required to maintain the communal parts and although the Applicant may choose to carry out gardening works themselves, this does not relieve the Respondent’s obligation to do so.

• Compare the charges to reasonable market rates for similar gardening services.

• Based on the aforementioned concerns, declare the service charges for May, June, and July 2023 unreasonable and unfair, and request their removal.

Drain Service

(May 2023)

Drain Repairs

(Aug 2023)

[NAME_38] £16.82

£277.89 Unjustified Drain Charges and Lack of Transparency: Requesting Tribunal Intervention

I strongly object to the service charges for "Drain Service" (£16.82) and "Drain Repairs" (£277.89) for several reasons:

1. Unnecessary Drain Service and Potential Damage:

The management company claims a regular drain service is necessary, but major works were already carried out in August 2022. This raises concerns about the need for additional service and potential damage caused by the previous work.

The 2019 statement of account lacks any drain service charge, suggesting it wasn't a regular practice in the past. Furthermore, the lack of provided statements for all years in dispute (despite tribunal directions) hinders transparency and raises further doubts about the necessity of the service.

2. Questionable [NAME_45]:

Despite the major drain repairs in August 2022, another invoice exceeding the [NAME_45] consultation threshold has been charged. This raises concerns about incomplete initial repairs and exceeding budget limitations without proper consultation.

The management company's justification of "patch repairs" being separate from the previous major works seems insufficient, especially considering the proximity of work timelines.

3. Potential Damage from High-Pressure Water Jetting:

The invoice mentions "high-pressure water jetting (HPWJ)" during the drain service. My suspicion is that this aggressive method may have caused the

Same applies Flat 6.

It is not unreasonable to carry out an inspection of the drains taking into account the history of the property.

The report clearly details the need for some further works, which were carried out The tribunal disallows this cost in full. The tribunal finds that having carried out extensive drainage works in recent years, these items are not considered to be reasonably necessary in the absence of any complaints of blockages/disrepair.

displaced joints requiring subsequent repairs.

The provided pictures lack clear evidence of displaced joints, further strengthening the suspicion of HPWJ-induced damage.

4. Lack of Transparency and Unresponsive Communication:

[NAME_31]'s responses to inquiries have been evasive and unconvincing, failing to address concerns about the necessity of the service and potential damage caused by HPWJ.

The repeated failure to provide statements for all years in dispute as directed by the tribunal further undermines transparency and accountability.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the potential for unnecessary drain service and damage caused by HPWJ.

• Examine the justification for additional drain repairs after major works in August 2022.

• Hold the management company accountable for the lack of transparency and unresponsive communication.

• Ultimately, declare both service charges unreasonable and unjustified due to the lack of necessity, potential damage, and noncompliance with [NAME_45] consultation thresholds and tribunal directions.

Wall & Ceiling

Finishes

(Internal

Decorating

Works)

(13th June

2023)

Invoice 14th

[NAME_47] £221.25 I object to the service charge of £221.25 for "Wall & Ceiling Finishes (Internal Decorating Works)" for several reasons:

1. Lack of Transparency and Evidence:

The invoice mentions "repairing impact damage," but the provided images show no such damage. There's also no detailed report identifying areas needing repair or providing before-and-after pictures.

This lack of evidence raises concerns about the actual work done and its justification. Without concrete proof, the service charge appears unclear and potentially inflated.

Same applies Flat 6. This was carried out as per the report obtained and was therefore carried out.

It is termed minor as there was no need to

consult

No alternative quotes provided The tribunal is not satisfied these works were either required or reasonably carried out and disallows this sum in full.

2. Suspicion of Splitting Services to [NAME_45]:

The internal decorating works were performed and billed separately on the same day as "Stoneworks, [NAME_59], and Floor Works." This timing and separate billing raise concerns about an attempt to circumvent the [NAME_45] consultation requirement by splitting a larger project into smaller charges.

3. Excessive Cost for Apparent Minor Work:

The £221.25 charge seems particularly high for what appears to be minor touch-up painting based on the invoice description. There's no justification for such a cost without understanding the extent of the work and confirming its necessity.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of transparency and evidence regarding the actual work performed for the internal decorating charge.

• Assess the possibility of service charge splitting to avoid [NAME_45] consultation and determine if this charge falls under the combined threshold requiring consultation.

• Evaluate the reasonableness of the £221.25 charge in light of the apparent minor work and lack of clear justification.

• Consider disallowing the charge or reducing it to a fair amount reflective of the actual work proven to have been done.

[NAME_60]

(13th June

2023)

Invoice 17th

[NAME_47] £154.88 Unjustified Stonework Charge and Suspicion of Service Splitting: Requesting Tribunal Review

I strongly object to the service charge of £154.88 for "[NAME_60]" due to several concerns:

1. Unclear Need for Cleaning and Potential Unfairness:

The invoice mentions cleaning "staining" on the stonework. However, considering the building is not a luxury, protected, or listed property, cleaning seemingly minor staining appears excessive and potentially unfair to leaseholders.

2. Lack of Transparency and Evidence:

It is termed minor as there was no need to

consult

No alternative quotes provided The tribunal is satisfied this work was reasonably required and carried out at a reasonable cost which is payable by the Applicants.

Similar to other charges, there's no detailed report specifying areas requiring "infill" or providing before-and-after pictures. This lack of evidence raises concerns about transparency and hinders verification of the work performed.

3. Suspicion of Splitting Services to [NAME_45]:

The [NAME_60], done on the same day as other works (Internal Decorating, [NAME_59], and Floor Works) but billed separately, seem like a deliberate attempt to circumvent the [NAME_45] consultation requirement by splitting a larger project into smaller charges.

4. Unreasonably High Cost for Minor Work:

The £154.88 charge appears unnecessarily high for what seems like routine cleaning and minor repairs, especially without clear justification for the cleaning itself.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Question the respondent on the rationale behind cleaning "staining" on the non-luxury building's stonework and assess its necessity and fairness.

• Examine the lack of detailed reports and before-and-after pictures for both cleaning and infill work, demanding their provision for clarity.

• Evaluate the possibility of service charge splitting to avoid [NAME_45] consultation and determine if the combined cost would trigger the consultation requirement.

• Reconsider the reasonableness of the £154.88 charge in light of the apparent minor work, lack of justification, and potential unfairness to leaseholders.

• Ultimately, consider disallowing the charge or significantly reducing it to reflect the actual work proven and its justification.

[NAME_59]

(13th June

2023)

[NAME_47] £177 [NAME_59] of Transparency: Requesting Tribunal Intervention

I strongly object to the service charge of £177 for "[NAME_59]" due to several concerns:

As above for Stone Works.

Invoice No

3201

1. Complete Lack of Evidence and Unresponsive Communication:

Despite requesting a detailed description of the work done, before-andafter pictures, and evidence of damage repair, the managing agent ([NAME_31]) simply sent the invoice and generic images and refused to provide any further information.

This lack of transparency and unresponsiveness raises serious concerns about the legitimacy of the charge and the actual work performed.

2. Inaccurate Invoice Description and Nonexistent Features:

The invoice mentions checking and repairing "balustrades and handrails," which do not exist on the premises. This glaring error raises doubts about the validity of the entire invoice and the competence of the service provider.

3. Insufficient Detail and Potential Duplication:

The invoice lacks specifics about what was "checked and repaired" in other areas like joinery and doors. This absence of detail prevents any verification of the work done and fuels suspicions of potentially unnecessary charges.

Furthermore, the service being performed on the same day as other works (Stoneworks, Internal Decorating, Floor Works) potentially amounts to a project exceeding the [NAME_45] consultation threshold, making the separate billing appear suspect.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the complete lack of transparency and evidence concerning the [NAME_59] and demand detailed reports and photographic proof of the work done.

• Hold the managing agent accountable for their refusal to provide information and consider penalties for such non-compliance.

• Examine the discrepancy between the invoice description and the non-existent features, questioning the validity of the charge. It is termed minor as there was no need to

consult

No alternative quotes provided

• Investigate the possibility of service charge splitting to avoid [NAME_45] consultation and determine if the combined cost would trigger the consultation requirement.

• Ultimately, declare the £177 charge unreasonable and unjustified due to the lack of evidence, inaccurate description, and potential duplicate charge within the same period.

Floor Works

(13th June

2023)

[NAME_47] No

3220 £106.20 Questionable Floor Works Charge and Lack of Transparency: Requesting Tribunal Scrutiny

I object to the service charge of £106.20 for "Floor Works" due to several concerning issues:

1. Complete Lack of Evidence and Unfounded Claims:

There's no evidence of the alleged "deep clean" of the carpets. The provided images lack before-and-after comparisons, and personal inspections reveal no discernible difference. This raises doubts about the actual work done and justifies questioning the entire charge.

Similarly, the points around checking trims, fixings, and trip hazards lack any supporting documentation or reports. Without proof of actual inspection or repairs, these charges appear unfounded.

2. Confusing and Non-Responsive Communication:

Requesting the invoice for "[NAME_59]" led to receiving the "Floor Works" invoice and images, indicating potential mismanagement and confusion. This raises concerns about the overall competence and accountability of the managing agent.

[NAME_31]'s response claiming the contractor confirms the work without providing further evidence is unsatisfactory and dismissive. The reliance on invoice alone as proof is insufficient in the absence of verifiable evidence.

3. Suspicion of Service Splitting to [NAME_45]:

Performing and billing floor works on the same day as other works

(Stoneworks, Internal Decorating, [NAME_59]) suggests a conscious effort to separate services to avoid exceeding the [NAME_45] consultation threshold. This potentially unfair practice undermines transparency and accountability.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the complete lack of evidence for the purported "deep clean" and other floor works.

• Hold the managing agent accountable for their non-responsive communication and failure to provide adequate proof of work done.

• Examine the possibility of service charge splitting to avoid [NAME_45] consultation and determine if the combined cost would trigger the consultation requirement.

• Ultimately, declare the £106.20 charge unreasonable and unjustified due to the lack of evidence, confusing communication, and potential violation of [NAME_45] consultation thresholds.

Same applies Flat 6.

This was carried out as per the report obtained and was therefore carried out.

It is termed minor as there was no need to

consult

No alternative quotes provided The tribunal is not satisfied these works were reasonably required and disallows their cost.

Wall Works

(26th Jun

2023)

[NAME_47] £221.25 Unbilled Wall Works Charge and Suspicious Timing: Requesting Tribunal Review

I strongly object to the service charge of £221.25 for "Wall Works" due to several concerns:

1. Complete Lack of Invoice and Transparency:

I never received any invoice for the wall works either by email or post. This lack of proper billing raises serious transparency concerns and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the charge.

Without access to an invoice detailing the work performed, it's impossible to assess its necessity, scope, or justification.

2. Suspicion of Service Splitting to [NAME_45]:

The timing of these alleged wall works is highly suspicious. Coinciding with other works (Stoneworks, Internal Decorating, Floor Works, [NAME_59]) and being billed separately suggests a potential attempt to fragment charges to avoid triggering the [NAME_45] consultation requirement.

It is termed minor as there was no need to

consult

This practice, if confirmed, would be unfair and a violation of tenant rights to proper consultation on major works exceeding certain cost thresholds.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the complete absence of an invoice for the wall works and demand its immediate provision.

• Examine the timing and scope of the alleged wall works in relation to other coinciding works to determine if service charge splitting was employed to circumvent [NAME_45] consultation.

• Consider the lack of any documentation or evidence regarding the wall works and question the validity and justification of the charge.

• Ultimately, declare the £221.25 charge unreasonable and unjustified due to the complete lack of an invoice, suspicious timing, and potential violation of [NAME_45] consultation requirements.

Gutter Clean

20th June

2023

20th Dec 2023

[COMPANY_67] £61.95

£61.95 Unjustified Gutter Cleaning Charges: Lack of Evidence and Suspicious Frequency

I object to the service charges of £61.95 each for gutter cleaning in June and December 2023 for several reasons:

1. Lack of Evidence of Debris and Unnecessary Frequency:

The provided blurry images for June 2023 show no apparent debris or blockages in the gutters or downpipes, raising significant concerns about the necessity of the cleaning.

The lack of surrounding foliage further strengthens the case that cleaning was unnecessary.

Despite repeated communication and absence of reported blockages or leaks, we continue to be billed for this recurring gutter cleans.

2. Excessively High Cost and Unreasonable Labour Charge:

The total charge of almost £500 for gutter cleans, even assuming one hour of work per clean, appears unreasonably high and exploitative.

Same applies Flat 6. The invoices and the

images are clear

It is not unreasonable to attend on a regular basis to clean the gutters The tribunal finds it reasonable for one gutter clearance to be carried out and the cost reasonable. However, the tribunal finds it unreasonable to have had carried out a second gutter clearance within months of the first.

The tribunal allows the cost of one gutter clearance only in the sum of £61.95.

Comparing this to an hourly rate of a senior barrister or even a junior investment banker highlights the disproportionate cost for what should be a routine and inexpensive task.

3. Lack of Response and Unprofessional Communication:

The outstanding dispute email regarding the December 2023 charge remains unanswered, demonstrating a lack of responsiveness and unprofessional communication from the management.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the lack of evidence justifying the gutter cleaning charges and assess their actual necessity.

• Review the frequency of gutter cleans and consider whether they are excessive and unjustified based on the property's conditions.

• Examine the reasonableness of the £61.95 charge, taking into account the minimal labour and potential for inflated pricing.

• Hold the management accountable for the lack of response to the dispute email and address concerns regarding unprofessional communication.

• Ultimately, declare the service charges for gutter cleaning unreasonable and unjustified due to the lack of evidence, unnecessary frequency, excessive cost, and unprofessional communication.

Electricity

(Jul / Aug Nov

X 2) £3.83 X 3 £3.96 Unjustified Electricity Bill Charges and Lack of Transparency: Requesting Tribunal Intervention

I object to the ongoing electricity bill charges of £3.83 per month from July to November for several reasons:

1. Unclear Justification for Charges in Credit Situation:

If the building is in credit with regards to electricity, charging any monthly fee seems illogical and unjustified. This lack of clarity raises concerns about the legitimacy of the charges and potential mismanagement.

2. Unresolved Overcharged Management Fees and Lack of Action:

Same applies Flat 6 Any credit was taken into account and these were the charges as per the invoices It was accepted by the Applicants this item was no longer an issue.

I previously disputed overcharged management fees and requested a rebate for the excess amount. The managing agent representative ([NAME_31]) promised to investigate but failed to follow through or provide any resolution.

This demonstrates a pattern of non-responsiveness and disregard for resident concerns.

3. Ignored Requests for Invoices and Backup Documentation:

My requests for detailed invoices and supporting documentation related to the electricity charges have been completely ignored by [NAME_31]. This lack of transparency further fuels suspicions about inaccurate or inflated charges.

4. Demand for Full Account Transparency and Resolution:

To properly assess the electricity charges and resolve this matter definitively, I require [NAME_31] to provide a comprehensive set of accounts detailing all debits and credits related to electricity, including the government help scheme.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Question the respondent on the legitimacy and justification for charging £3.83 per month despite being in credit with electricity.

• Hold the managing agent accountable for failing to address the previously disputed overcharges and for ignoring requests for information.

• Enforce the provision of comprehensive and transparent accounts regarding electricity debits, credits, and government help scheme participation.

• Ultimately, determine the reasonableness of the ongoing electricity charges and issue a clear directive on how this matter should be resolved going forward.

[NAME_40]

(Nov 2023) £116.82 [NAME_40]: Requesting Tribunal Assessment

I strongly object to the service charge of £116.82 for the "[NAME_40]" for several reasons:

Same applies Flat 6. As per the [NAME_40] regulations this is required on an annual basis The tribunal finds the work and the cost are reasonable and allows this sum in full.

Although the Applicants complained of a lack of invoices the tribunal finds that the majority of the items in issue were supported by invoices. It also noted that although the Respondent asserted there were a number or invoices missing from the bundle, the tribunal is nevertheless satisfied this work was carried out.

1. Lack of Justification for Annual Frequency:

• Neither the invoice nor [NAME_31]'s response provide any specific regulations or requirements mandating an annual inspection. While referencing "regulations relating to the [NAME_44]" remains vague, the inspection seems driven by the previous audit report suggesting an annual frequency, not a regulatory obligation.

• This raises concerns about whether the annual inspection is truly necessary or simply another way to extract money from leaseholders.

2. Potential Inaccuracy and Inconsistencies in Inspection Report:

• The report's incorrect statement about the rubber mat, despite its existing presence confirmed by me, casts doubt on the overall accuracy and thoroughness of the inspection.

• The unaddressed "Continual Monitoring Required" directive without explanation further fuels suspicions about unnecessary charges and inadequate service.

3. Lack of Transparency and Unresponsive Communication:

• [NAME_31]'s failure to provide evidence of regulations requiring annual inspections and details about the "UNSST" report requested constitutes a lack of transparency and hinders proper assessment of the charges.

• This non-responsive communication undermines trust and raises concerns about potential mismanagement.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the true legal basis for annual [NAME_40] inspections and determine if there's a valid regulatory requirement beyond the previous audit suggestion.

• Scrutinize the accuracy and thoroughness of the inspection report in light of the rubber mat discrepancy and unexplained "Continual Monitoring Required" directive.

• Hold the managing agent accountable for their lack of transparency and unresponsive communication regarding regulations and requested information.

• Ultimately, declare the £116.82 charge unreasonable and unjustified due to the lack of clear justification for annual inspections, potential inaccuracies in the report, and nontransparent communication.

[NAME_37]

(Nov 2023) £658.33 [NAME_37]: Lack of Transparency and

Unresponsiveness

I strongly object to the service charge of £658.33 for [NAME_37] for the period December 2023 – December 2024 due to several concerning issues:

1. Delayed and Incomplete Information:

While the invoice arrived promptly, obtaining supporting documents required multiple requests and resulted in a delayed response until December 1st, 2023. This lack of proactive communication and timely information provision raises concerns about transparency and accountability.

2. Unanswered Questions and Potential Issues:

The presence of a £20k landlord contents item on the policy and the absence of premium details on the certificate warrant clarification. [NAME_31]'s silence on these questions suggests potential problems or inconsistencies that require further investigation.

3. Suspicion of Changed Providers and Fees:

The apparent change in insurer and possible use of a new broker raise concerns about transparency in selecting providers and ensuring competitive pricing.

4. Unresponsiveness to Legitimate Inquiries:

Same applies Flat 6. The challenge is not clear. There are no alternative quotes.

There was a change in broker which resulted in savings for the leaseholder.

The contents was on the insurance taken over from the previous freeholder and has been on the policy every eyar The tribunal finds the Respondent is permitted to use the broker/insurer of their choice. Although the cost of insurance may not be the cheapest, the Respondent is free to use the reputable insurer of its choice. Although the Applicants complain their enquiries were not immediately answered, the Respondent did provide for the purpose of these applications, numerous invoices and answers to the Applicants’ queries. Notwithstanding, the Applicants made no concessions to the reasonableness or payability of any of the items of service charge.

[NAME_31]'s complete disregard for multiple questions regarding commission, fee apportionment, block policy details, claims history, alternative quotes, valuation, and market testing demonstrates a lack of responsiveness and hinders proper assessment of the charges.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the delay in providing supporting documents and hold the managing agent accountable for this lack of transparency.

• Scrutinize the presence of the £20k landlord contents item and the absence of premium details on the certificate for potential discrepancies or unfair inclusions.

• Examine the reasons and process behind the change in insurer and potential new broker to ensure fair competition and optimal pricing.

• Compel the managing agent to provide detailed responses to all unanswered questions regarding commission, fees, block policy, claims history, alternative quotes, valuation, and market testing.

• Ultimately, declare the £658.33 charge unreasonable and unjustified due to the lack of transparency, unanswered questions, potential discrepancies, and unresponsive communication.

[NAME_61]

(Nov 2023)

[NAME_62] £51.33 Unjustified Fire Health and Safety Annual Test Charge: Seeking Tribunal Review

I strongly object to the service charge of £51.33 for the "Fire Health and Safety Annual Test" for several compelling reasons:

1. Repeated Charging Despite Previous Disallowance:

This charge was already disallowed in a previous tribunal case

(LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290) due to its unnecessary frequency. Billing it again despite the precedent sets a concerning precedent and disregards legal rulings.

2. Exorbitant Pricing and Redundancy:

The individual charges of £50 for a detector and £25 for an emergency service light appear unreasonably high, especially considering monthly checks for these same items. This raises concerns about potential

Same applies Flat 6. It is not unreasonable to carry out a full service on an annual

basis, in fact it is a legal requirement The tribunal finds the charge is reasonable and payable by the Applicants.

overcharging and exploitative pricing.

3. Duplication of Effort and Unclear Value:

Requiring an annual test when monthly checks already occur is redundant and inefficient. It's unclear how the annual test adds additional value beyond the existing monthly maintenance.

4. Lack of Transparency and Inadequate Documentation:

The invoice provides no details about the specific work performed during the annual test. Additionally, the absence of photographic evidence or a report further undermines the legitimacy of the charge and hinders proper assessment.

5. Unresponsiveness and Dismissive Communication:

[NAME_31]'s dismissive response of "All we need to send is the invoice" demonstrates a lack of transparency and disregard for resident concerns. It fails to address the valid questions raised about the justification and details of the service.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Reiterate the previous tribunal's decision disallowing this charge based on its unnecessary frequency.

• Investigate the exorbitant pricing and consider whether it reflects fair market value for the work performed.

• Review the redundancy with existing monthly checks and assess the justification for an additional annual test.

• Compel the managing agent to provide a detailed breakdown of the work performed during the annual test, along with photographic evidence or a report.

• [NAME_31] accountable for dismissive communication and demand responsiveness to residents' valid concerns regarding service charges.

• Ultimately, declare the £51.33 charge unreasonable and unjustified due to its redundancy, excessive pricing, lack of transparency, and dismissive communication.

Fire Door

Service &

Inspection

(Nov 2023) £26.55 There are no fire doors within communal areas of the building and as such, a fire door inspection is not chargeable under the lease. All fire doors as entry doors to flats are the responsibility of the leaseholder.” This item was also disputed in case reference LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290 for year 2020/2021 and the service charge was disallowed in full.

I ask the tribunal to seek the same decision for 2023 and to instruct the respondent that there should not be any more invoices billed going forward relating to Fire Door Service & Inspection.

The law requires for all doors to be inspected, including the communal doors and the flat doors. These are all termed fire doors

The tribunal allows 50% of this charge for the reasons previously stated.

Drain Service

(Nov 2023)

[NAME_38] £42.04 Unjustified Drain Service Charge: Excessive Frequency, Lack of Evidence, and Potential Damage - Tribunal Review Requested

I strongly object to the service charge of £42.04 for "Drain Service" due to several concerning issues:

1. Excessively Frequent Service and Questionable Necessity:

This charge follows another drain service billed in May 2023, which I am already disputing. These frequent drain services appear excessive and raise questions about their actual necessity. There have been no reported leakages or blockages to justify them.

2. Lack of Transparency and Inadequate Documentation:

As with other charges, [NAME_31]'s response of "All we need to send is the invoice" demonstrates a dismissive attitude and hinders proper assessment. The invoice lacks details about the specific work performed, photographic evidence, or a report documenting the service.

3. Potential Damage from Previous Service:

I suspect the May 2023 drain service may have resulted in displaced joints, leading to further problems and unnecessary charges. Without proper investigation and evidence, this suspicion remains a concern.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Investigate the justification for such frequent drain services and assess whether they are truly necessary based on the property's condition.

• [NAME_31] / Respondent accountable for their lack of transparency and demand comprehensive documentation for all service charges, including detailed work descriptions, photographic evidence, and reports.

• Examine the possibility of damage caused by the previous drain service and determine whether it led to this additional charge.

• Ultimately, declare the £42.04 charge unreasonable and unjustified due to its excessive frequency, lack of transparency, and potential connection to previous service issues

Same applies Flat 6. Same as previous comments on the drainage The tribunal finds this work and the cost unreasonable in light of the previous extensive drainage works carried out and the absence of any reported or identified issue.

Original Invoice:

Base cost: £1000

VAT (20%): £200

Total: £1200

Management Fee:

15% of the total invoice (£1200) = £180

VAT (20%) on the management fee (£180) = £36

Final Charge to Leaseholders:

Original invoice (including VAT): £1200

Management fee (including VAT): £216

Total payable: £1416

This results in leaseholders effectively paying VAT twice:

Same applies Flat 6. This is not illegal and is the correct way to charge.

The management fee is calculated on the actual cost.

Vat cannot be recovered The tribunal finds the practice of adding a 15% managing agents fees to all invoices contrary to the RICS guide and disallows. the 15% added to all relevant invoices.

£200 on the original invoice

£36 on the management fee itself

This practice is highly questionable:

It creates an unfair financial burden on leaseholders.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

I urge the tribunal to investigate this matter thoroughly and protect leaseholders from unfair financial practices

Item Related to Flat 6 Only

£1,223.46 payment made on 31/01/23. Landlord Statement of Account provided states only £223.46 and therefore £1,000 less than that actually paid.

I strongly object to [COMPANY_33].'s practice of not fully recognising multiple payments made against our service charge account. We have highlighted these ‘accounting errors’ previously which has ended up in dispute despite our detailed bank statements being provided as factual evidence.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• Determine the legality of [COMPANY_33].'s accounting procedures and auditing processes. All payments have indeed been accounted

for as per the statement Not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

• [COMPANY_63].'s understanding around strict accounting rules and procedures particularly around handling client funds.

• [NAME_34] to amend our service charge account to reflect the £1,223.46 payment made on 31.01.23.

Item Related to Flat 6 Only

£1,804.48 payment on account was made on 12/12/23. The Landlord Statement of Account provided does not show this amount paid.

Comments apply as stated directly above and I request the tribunal to:

• [NAME_34] to amend our service charge account to reflect the £1,804.48 payment made on 12.12.23.

All payments have indeed been accounted

for as per the statement

Not within the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Item Related to Flat 6 Only

Latest Statement of Account dated 12/12/23 highlights ‘Debit from Jan 2021/2022 £7,356.36’ and ‘Outstanding Costs’ £1,530.00. The service charge account for this period is unclear without a full detailed breakdown being provided – it has been requested during this period multiple times including via [NAME_64] acting for [NAME_34] at Mediation. We have no prior knowledge of the alarming £1,530 item related to

‘outstanding costs’ which was an item that appeared within the statement dated 12/12/23.

Therefore, I request the tribunal to:

• [NAME_34] provide a detailed breakdown of the service charge costs related to previous period 21/22 including supplementary and supporting evidence as should be expected for consideration and scrutiny.

• Request details from [NAME_34] on the item £1,530 outstanding costs plus the justification for such.

This is based on the accounts sent already The tribunal is unclear as to whether it is asserted this charge is unreasonable or why and therefore makes no findings in respect of it..

Service Charge items disputed by [NAME_2] for the service charge year ending 31 March 2024 but is agreed applies to all Applicants.

1. Drain Service – the tribunal finds this was a charge incurred in 2022 and was dealt with previously in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290.

2. Internal decorating works (July 2023) – the tribunal finds this item was also dealt with in LON/00AQ/LSC/2022/0290.

3. Sweep of electrics – the tribunal finds this work and the cost reasonable and payable by the Applicants

4. Grit spreading – the tribunal finds the cost of these works reasonable and payable by the Applicants.