First-tier Tribunal Rules Service Charges Irrecoverable

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference :

LON/00AL/LSC/2024/0239

Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicants :

[redacted] Applicant) and others set out on the attached Schedule

Representative : [NAME_5] for himself and on behalf of the other Applicants Respondent :

[redacted] : The Respondent did not appear, having been debarred Type of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) ; Orders under section 20C of that Act and Paragraph 5A Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) Tribunal members : Mr C [NAME_6] [NAME_7] Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Hearing : 10 October 2025 Date of decision : 8 January 2026

DECISION

2 Decisions of the Tribunal

(1) The Tribunal determines that the historical tariff deficit (“HTD”) charges in connection with heating and hot water provided to the Applicants are irrecoverable as service charges under the respective leases.

(2) The Tribunal disallows 20% of the managing agents’ fees for the period 1 March to 31 December 2022 and 1 January to 31 December 2023. (3) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order a refund of monies paid. (4) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order payment of interest. (5) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make findings in relation to alleged misuse of service charge funds. (6) The Tribunal makes orders 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 Applicants for such an Order through any service charge. (7) The Tribunal makes an Order under Paragraph 5A Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, that none of the landlord’s costs of proceeding may be recovered by way of an administration charge for legal costs against the Lead Applicant (see further below). (8) The Tribunal determines that the Respondent shall pay the Lead Applicant the costs of the application and hearing fee within 28

days of this Decision. The application 1. The Applicants seek a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) in respect of certain service charges said to be payable by the Applicant in respect of the service charge years 2022 and 2023. The items challenged are the historic tariff deficit relating to the supply of heat and hot water, and management fees. There are also applications for orders under section 20C of the 1985 Act and Para 5A Sch 11 of the 2002 Act. The hearing 2. The Applicant appeared in person and represented fifty-six other Applicants together with further section 20C applicants (see below). The Respondent was not represented having been debarred. The Tribunal

3 received a hearing bundle of 1429 pages together with a skeleton argument of 24 pages. The background 3. The background was set out by Tribunal Judge Latham in Directions of 24 November 2024 as follows: 8. [NAME_5] is the tenant of 60 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] (“the Flat”). The lease is dated 18 February 2022. There are three parties to the lease: (i) [COMPANY_9] (the Landlord); (ii) [COMPANY_10] (the Management Company); and [NAME_2] and [NAME_12] (“the Tenant”). The Landlord’s interest has now been acquired by [COMPANY_583], albeit that the transfer has not yet been registered at the Land Registry. 9. […]

10. The [flat is] part of the [ADDRESS] which is being constructed on the historic Lovell’s Wharf site in Greenwich. The freeholders are [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS].2 Limited. However, there are various intermediate interests in respect of different flats on the Estate. Some lessees are subtenants of the [COMPANY_14]. All the relevant tenants hold their flats under tripartite leases with the Respondent named as the Management Company. All the tenants hold one share in the Respondent Company. However, the Respondent is controlled by the freeholder until the development is completed. The Respondent has engaged [NAME_25] [“[NAME_15]”]to manage the development.

11. The Estate has a gas fired district heating system which provides heating and hot water to the flats and to some of the commercial units. “[NAME_16]” has been the provider of the heating and hot water which has been charged to the tenants through individual meters. There have been separate agreements between [NAME_16] and (i) the Respondent and (ii) the tenants. In early 2022, “[NAME_17]” terminated their agreement with the Respondent. Since 1 March 2022, “[NAME_16]” have only been responsible for billing the tenants. “[NAME_16]” had been responsible for procuring the gas supply. The Respondent has sought

4 to recover from the tenants the costs of (i) maintaining the plant and (ii) running this scheme.

12. This dispute has arisen because the Respondent inherited a deficit of £198,986.26 (“the deficit”) which it is seeking to charge to the lessees. The problem has come about because gas prices were at their peak in 2022 and the tariff charged to the tenants was not raised to reflect this. The Respondent has sought to charge this sum to some 580 flats, apportioned according to the energy that they consumed. The bills range from some £50 to £600 per tenant. On or about 15 December 2023, the Respondent issued a demand to the Lead Applicant in the sum of some £550.

13. The Respondent states that the sums are payable pursuant to Schedule 4, Part 2, paragraph 5 of his lease. Part 2 sets out his covenants with both the Landlord and the Management Company. The tenant covenants: “to pay a fair and proper contribution to the standing charges and to the costs of the metered cold water chilled water heating water and gas supplies or other services to the Estate or parts thereof in accordance with the meter readings in the Demised Premises.” 14. The Lead Applicant challenges his demand on the following grounds: (i) The Respondent is not entitled to charge for this deficit. The tenants have nevertheless paid the sums demanded of this for their current consumption. (ii) The demands did not comply with either Section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 or Section 21B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. [NAME_18] conceded this point, but stated that the Respondent would now remedy this default. (iii) The sums demanded are not payable by virtue of Section 201B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. (iv) The sums demanded were not reasonably incurred. The Lead Applicant questions whether the Respondent sought funding under the Energy Bill Relief Scheme. (v) The provision made for “bad debts”.

5 (vi) The impact of the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014. (vii) The problem has been created by the poor management practices of [“[NAME_15]”] as a result of which their management charge should be reduced by 30%. (viii) The arrears have wrongly been funded from the reserve fund. [NAME_18] questioned whether this ground, which might amount to a breach of trust, fell within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal adds that lessees were required by the lessor to enter into a separate agreement with “[NAME_16]” on lease completion. Procedural Matters 5. Jurisdiction 6. The Tribunal expressed some concern as jurisdiction. That flows from whether or not the sums demanded are “service charges” as defined by section 18 of the 1985 Act. It noted that the Respondents initial position was that the sums disputed were outside the lease. Subsequently however the Respondent changed its position and relied on Para. 5, Part 2, of Schedule 4 of the Lease in which the lessee covenants with the Company: “To pay a fair and proper contribution to the standing charges and to the cost of the metered cold water chilled water heating water and gas supplies or other services to the Estate or parts thereof in accordance with the meter readings for the Demised Premises”

7. The term “Estate” is defined at [53]1 in wide terms and does not exclude the demise. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that it does have jurisdiction under s 27A of the 1985 Act.

8. Schedule 6 Part 3 Clause 1.12 also permits the company “to provide any other services or undertake any other matters in respect of the Apartment Units that the Company may reasonably decide necessary (sic) in the interests of good estate management.” “Apartment Units” are defined as the residential [NAME_20] (including the Demised Premises).”

1 Square brackets denote page references in the hearing bundle; references to the prefix B where shown can be disregarded.

6 9. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider alleged misuse of the reserve fund which is a matter for the County Court under sections 42 and 52 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

10. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order a refund of monies paid or to order payment of interest, because the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is declaratory. Parties 11. The Lead Applicant informed the Tribunal that there were 56 Applicants joined for the section 27A. A further 108 leaseholders had applied for section 20C Orders. A Schedule of both s.27A and section 20C Applicants was provided by the Lead Applicant and this is annexed. The Tribunal waives any direction precluding a late applicant from joining, providing such an application had been made on or before 10 October 2025. An application for an Order under Paragraph 5A Sch 11 was also made in the application form (see further below). Debarment of the Respondent 12. On 23 May 2025 the Respondent was debarred from defending the proceedings having persistently failed to serve a statement of case and other documents as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal (Tribunal Judge Walker) also warned the Respondent that the Tribunal would summarily determine all matters against them. With respect to the judge the relevant rule (r.9(7)) states that the Tribunal “need not consider any response or submissions made by the Respondent and may summarily determine any or all issues against that Respondent.” Therefore, the rule permits but does not mandate resolution against a respondent. Nevertheless, debarment is a very serious order adverse to the Respondent. No Inspection 13. Neither party requested an inspection and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary having regard to the issues in dispute. The Applicants’ Case 14. The Lead Applicant provided detailed submissions. The Tribunal intends no disrespect in dealing with many of the grounds quite briefly. This arises from its main finding that the sums demanded are irrecoverable as service charges. Consequently, it is unnecessary for it to make findings on all grounds advanced.

7 Ground (i) The Respondent is not entitled to charge for this deficit. The tenants have rather paid the sums demanded of this for their current consumption. 15. [NAME_5] relied on The Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014 and submitted that invoices received did not comply with such provisions. He also argued that retrospective price increases for gas were unfair within Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consequently, they did not bind the consumer, namely the respective lessee. Grounds (ii) and (iii) – S47 LTA 1987, S21B LTA 1985, S20B LTA 1985 16. [NAME_5] submitted “The demands did not comply with s.47 LTA 1987 (landlord’s name and address) or s.21B LTA 1985 (summary of rights). Under either statute (s.47(2), s.21B(3)) a non-compliant demand is not due. The Respondent’s counsel conceded these defects at the Case Management Hearing on 14 November 2024 [B/32](14(ii)). Although the Respondent said it would remedy the default, it did not do so. The sums therefore never became due and are irrecoverable.” 17. He further submitted that the demands did not comply with the service charge provisions in the lease. He submitted that the defects were contractual, not clerical, and therefore cannot be retrospectively cured. He relied on No. 1 West India Quay Ltd v East Tower Apartments Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1119 [31].

18. He further submitted that recovery was time-barred under section 20B. The Respondent had served a section 20B(2) notice on 29 June 2023, but this did not reference the HTD. The Respondent did not claim that charges were recoverable under the lease until 14 November 2024. GROUND (iv) – Part 1 – The sums were not reasonably incurred

19. The Applicant submitted that the charges do not satisfy Section 19(1)(a) or (b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as the costs arose from actions which were unreasonable, and the services were not delivered to a reasonable standard. The HTD charges are said to be based on gas costs incurred between 1 March 2022 and 31 May 2023.

20. The Applicant submitted that [NAME_15] have demonstrated that they cannot be relied upon to carry out key tasks involved in running a heat network, and do not even purport to be able to do so. The Applicant referred to a statement made by [NAME_21], an Area Director at [NAME_15] on 20 June 2024 in which she said “[NAME_24] or myself, to the best of my

8 knowledge, have been asked to prepare a heating draft business plan - I have no idea what this is and would not be comfortable preparing one when heating networks / distribution is not my expertise…”.

21. The Applicant submitted that there was no evidence that any party other than [NAME_15] was considered and that the Respondent should not have assumed such a role, and should not have delegated them to [NAME_15].

22. The Applicant submitted that it was not reasonable for costs to be incurred on the service charge when residents had explicit contractual relationships with “[NAME_16]” stating that “[NAME_16]” would bear the risks of gas price volatility. [NAME_15] have acknowledged that residents did not receive any notice of cancellation of such agreements [B/349](Q21). The Applicant submitted that the Respondent should look to the contracts held with [NAME_15] and “[NAME_16]” to recover any business losses.

23. The Applicant submitted that, had the tariff been reviewed when it should have been charges would have been recovered directly from heat users and no cost would have fallen to the service charge.

GROUND (iv) – Part 2 – The Energy Bills Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme

24. In brief, the Applicant submitted that government support schemes applied to gas purchases during the relevant period, but that [NAME_15] omitted the reductions provided by those schemes. Consequently, invoices provided were overstated.

25. Based on the assumed receipt of such discounts, the Applicant formed an estimate of the actual deficit. He also challenged the amount of the deficit on the basis that it included double counting from non-reporting meters and some costs in 2022 in respect of unsold [COMPANY_9] homes. [NAME_5] calculated that rather than a recoverable deficit there was in fact a surplus of £12,423.62 to be credited back to leaseholders.

GROUND (iv) – Part 3 – [NAME_25]’s Commission

26. The Applicant complained that [NAME_15] received a commission on wholesale gas. He submitted that although [NAME_15] claimed that this covered tendering costs, [NAME_15] were already charged a management fee. Such costs are not recoverable under Schedule 4, part 2, paragraph 5 of the lease, applying [NAME_26] (see above). The Applicant calculated that [NAME_15] received £8,487.43 commission for the period relevant to the deficit and a further £3,590.26 during the remainder of the 2023 service charge year.

9 GROUND (iv) – Part 4 – Unreasonable Site-wide Disconnection Fees

27. The lead Applicant submitted that [NAME_15] repeatedly allowed the Estate’s heat supply to reach the point of threatened disconnection owing to financial mismanagement. This led to four improper service charge costs. These comprised two pre-disconnection visits, a locksmith fee and warrant application fee. The aggregate amount is £1,208.79. [NAME_5] submitted that there were irrecoverable under the lease. GROUND (v) – The Bad Debt Allowance

28. The Applicant complained that the Respondent has incorporated an allowance for bad debt in setting the heating tariff. He relied on correspondence showing a 10% allowance applied to both standing charges and heat unit rate in late 2023. Absent compliant disclosure from the Respondent [NAME_5] estimated the bad debt allowance to be £49,500. He accepted that that may not be entirely accurate but submitted that such bad debts are irrecoverable under the terms of the lease. GROUND (vi) – The impact of the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014.

29. [NAME_5] submitted that the residential supply agreements issued by [NAME_16] expressly allowed transfer of responsibility to subtenants at which point the obligations of head leaseholder would be suspended. Despite this, [NAME_15] had pursued head leaseholders for consumption in the premises. He submitted that the 2014 regulations require billing to final customers and [NAME_15]’s position was inconsistent with this. GROUND (vii) – [NAME_25]’s Management Charge

30. The Lead Applicant submitted that [NAME_15] bore responsibility for ensuring the suitability of contractual arrangements with “[NAME_16]”. In September 2023, [NAME_15] acknowledged that the tariff charged to all residents should have been updated sooner to take account of the new gas price to prevent a shortfall accumulating. This was an admission that the issue of the deficit should not have arisen.

31. On 19 May 2023 [NAME_15] informed residents that there was no hot water on site. The Applicant submitted that this was highly likely a direct consequence of [NAME_15]’s financial mismanagement.

32. Reserves were subsequently used to cover gas contract arrears of £260,000. Subsequently, leaseholders were pressured to pay deficit charges within 14 days. None of these demands identified a legal basis nor did they include the statutory summary of rights. [NAME_15] are RICS

10 regulated and ought to have known that the invoices were contractually invalid and legally unenforceable. 33. [NAME_27] referred to a letter of 1 September 2023 which stated “…various statutes that might indicate that using a backdated heat bill/retrospective tariff via the [NAME_16] portal is potentially illegal” [B/361-364] but continued: “We intend to commence using the [NAME_16] portal in the first instance…”.

34. On 6 August 2024, [NAME_15] stated: “It should be noted that these demands do not include charges for heat bills, as these are collected separately to the service charge funds. Heat charges also do not form part of the service charge budgets.” [B/875]. Consequently, such charges have never been included in the statutory service charge accounts. 35. [NAME_5] submitted that the RICS Code of Practice 3rd Edition (“RICS Code”), Part 7.3 - 'Budgeting/estimating service charges' states [B/698]: “… Services may be difficult to provide but the landlord must follow the terms of the lease. In such a situation, the landlord may have to wait over a year to recover the expenditure incurred early in the service charge year and may have to pay for the cost of borrowing money to finance the costs. Sometimes the landlord cannot recover any interest charged on borrowings as part of the service charge.” 36. [NAME_5] submitted that [NAME_15] had made repeated email demands and threats of legal action which breached the RICS Code. Part 4.5 warns against interfering with leaseholders’ peace and comfort or engaging in harassment, which is a criminal offence. He asserted that [NAME_15]’s conduct may amount to harassment within section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He submitted that there were numerous documented instances where [NAME_15] have failed to meet Core principle 1: “To conduct business in an honest, fair, transparent and professional manner”. He set out alleged examples which it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to set out as it unnecessary for it to make relevant findings (see below).

37. The Applicant also submitted that, by allowing [NAME_15] to take on key responsibilities for running a heat network whilst not having the necessary expertise, the Respondent failed to provide the standard of management required by Core Principle 2. 38. [NAME_5] submitted that no written management agreement existed between the Respondent and R&R. In Bennett v Derri Properties Ltd (2023) [CHI/43UF/LSC/2023/0063] at [58-63] the FTT said:

11 “There was no management contract, management agreement or terms of agreement … Transparency about costs requires a clear paper trail of the contractual arrangements entered into by the landlord … There was no written management agreement in place (para 3.2 of the Code). This is a serious failing” 39. In that case, the Tribunal applied a 30% reduction to the managing agent’s fee. In the Schedule of 10 September 2024, the Applicants proposed a 30% deduction for the period 1 March 2022 to 31 December 2023. In Cabot 24 [NAME_20] v [NAME_28] for People+ Limited (2024) [CHI/00HB/LSC/2023/0111] at [66-67] the Tribunal applied a 75% deduction to the agent’s fee after finding that RMG’s failings had led to a complete electricity disconnection and that residents had been misled by incorrect information. GROUND (viii) – The arrears have wrongly been funded from the reserve fund.

40. The Applicant claimed loss of interest of £17,073.87 in respect of sums said to have been improperly taken from the reserve fund to meet the HTD. The Respondent should have provided this funding itself. The calculation was based on the Prescribed Rate under the lease, being 3% above [NAME_29] base rate. The Lease 41. The Applicant referenced his own lease dated 18 February 2022 by way of a sample. This is a tripartite document made between [COMPANY_580], [COMPANY_30], [NAME_31] and himself relating to flat 604 Great Eastern Ct together with one parking space. The lease grants a term of 999 years (less 10 days) from 1st January 2016. The accounting year is 1st January until 31 December.

42. By clause 3.1, the tenant covenants with the company to observe and perform the obligations set out in Part 2 of Schedule 4. By clause 5 the company covenants with the tenant to observe and perform obligations set out in schedule 6. The tenant covenants under paragraph 1 Part 2 of Schedule 4 to pay to the company the service charge in accordance with the provisions contained in Schedule 9. “Service charge” is defined as the “apartment service charge”, the “block service charge” the “estate service charge” and the “car park service charge”. 43. “Services” are defined to include gas and electricity water soil surface water heat and hot water being in on under or over any part or parts of the Estate.

44. At Schedule 6 Part 2 the company covenants to provide services to the Block. Para 1.3 of that Part requires the company to provide

12 “heating…water …and at 1.4 provide Services to the Block. “Block” is defined as “The building within which the Property is situate shown edged and hatched red on Plan 2. The definition does not exclude demised areas.

45. At Schedule 6, Part 3 Para. 1 the company covenants to [supply] as appropriate services set out at Part 3. At Para 1.5 the company covenants “to keep in good repair and to renew and improve … the Services (to the extent they are not adopted by the appropriate authority) in under and upon the Estate and exclusively serving the Apartment Units but not including the Demised Premises or other demised parts of the Apartment Units including for the avoidance of doubt the cost of any standing charges and of gas electricity oil or other fuel water and telephones used in providing any of the Services…” 46. Schedule 9 which is entitled “Service Charge Regulation” sets out the mechanism by which service charges may be recovered. In summary, Paragraph 3 provides that the amount of the service charge shall be ascertained and certified by certificate signed by the company’s accountants as soon after the end of the company’s financial year as may be practicable. The certificate shall be supplied by the company to the tenant on written request. The company’s certificate shall contain a summary of the expenses and outgoings incurred by the company during the company’s financial year to which it relates together with a summary of the relevant details of figures forming the basis of the service charge. The company’s certificate shall be conclusive evidence for the purposes of the lease. By paragraph 7 as soon as practicable after the signature of the company certificate the company shall furnish the tenant an account of the service charge payable by the tenant for the year in question. Accounts and service charge demands 47. Service charge accounts for the [ADDRESS] development were included for the years ending 31 December 2022 and 2023. They were prepared by [NAME_15] and audited by [NAME_33] who conducted an audit in accordance with international standards on auditing. The auditors stated for both years “In our opinion the service charge accounts of [ADDRESS] for the year ended 31 December … are prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the accounting policies set out in Note 1 to the accounts.” The accounts included no reference to expenditure on gas or the provision of heating or hot water.

48. Section 20B(2) notices for 2022 were also included in the bundle. Expenditure on gas or the provision of heat or hot water was not referenced.

13 Discussion 49. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to determining the reasonableness and payability of service charges pursuant to the lease together with the making of ancillary costs orders.

50. The Tribunal finds that the common intention of the parties was always that the cost of supplying heating and hot water should be addressed outside the lease by means of the Energy Supply Agreements. The tenants were required to enter into such agreements as a condition of their leases being granted. The Tribunal notes the correspondence to the Tribunal dated 6 August 2024, where [NAME_15] stated: “It should be noted that these demands do not include charges for heat bills, as these are collected separately to the service charge funds. Heat charges also do not form part of the service charge budgets.” [B/875]

51. The service charge accounts notably exclude any reference to the cost of supplying heating and hot water and gas.

52. The Tribunal finds that the only demands for payment [492 et Seq.] in relation to such energy costs including demands to pay the deficit were in the form of utility bills from “[NAME_16]”. Such demands did not comply with the statutory requirements for service charge demands. They did not include details of the landlord’s address as required by s. 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. They did not include a summary of the tenant’s rights relating to service charges under section 21B.

53. The Tribunal finds that these defects have not been cured and consequently the demands are all invalid as service charge demands.

54. The Tribunal also finds that the audited accounts underlying service charge demands for the relevant years are final and binding and do not now permit recovery of the deficit via the service charge.

55. For the above reasons, The Tribunal finds that none of the HTD charges are recoverable as service charges pursuant to the respective leases.

56. For completeness, in relation to s20B, the Tribunal notes that “[NAME_16]” demands were issued on 15 December 2023. These related to a deficit between 1 March 2022 and 31 May 2023. Section 20B is only therefore engaged for the period 1 March 2022 to 14 June 2022, being more than 18 months prior to the demand. However, the demands were otherwise invalid for the reasons given above.

14 Allegations of Management Failures and Harassment 57. As the Tribunal stated at the hearing, the Tribunal is not a disciplinary Tribunal. [NAME_15] were never a party nor represented: they are agents not principals. The Tribunal has no knowledge of instructions given to [NAME_15] from the Respondent.

For these reasons the Tribunal declines to express any view on allegations of professional misconduct. It is inappropriate for it to make findings in relation to claims of harassment, which is an allegation of a criminal offence.

58. However, the Tribunal does find that [NAME_15] were indirectly involved in the provision of the supply of heating and hot water via gas procurement. It notes that [NAME_15] have admitted to some failings in that regard. The Tribunal does not have sufficient evidence to make a finding that heating interruption experienced (see above) arose from a failure of management. However, it disallows the disconnection and warranty invoices on the grounds that they are outside the scope of the service charge or otherwise unreasonably incurred.

59. The Tribunal finds that there should be a reduction in the management fee charged. It notes that the Respondent acting via [NAME_15] is providing a wide range of services on the Estate as evidenced by the Income & Expenditure Accounts [757]. The deficits demanded as evidenced in the bundle at [491] range from £44.97 to £1,237.41. The majority are for less than £500. The individual amounts involved are therefore comparatively modest.

60. The Tribunal finds that the Applicants’ assertion at [21] that there is no contractual documentation between [NAME_35] and [NAME_15] is insufficiently evidenced for the Tribunal to make such a finding.

61. Having regard to above matters, the Tribunal considers that the management fee should be reduced by 20% for the relevant period, being 1 March 2022 to 31 December 2023. Other Grounds 62. It is unnecessary for the Tribunal to make findings on other grounds including: • the effects of the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, • whether or not the historic tariff deficit was reasonably incurred under s. 19 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985,

15 • the effect of Energy Bills Relief Scheme, and Discount Schemes, • whether [NAME_15]’s commission for gas procurement was payable • whether the bad debt allowance could properly form part of a service charge demand Costs Orders 63. In the application form Applicant applied for orders under section 20C of the 1985 Act and Para 5A Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act. The Applicants have succeeded. The Respondents were disbarred from defending the proceedings.

For these reasons the Tribunal makes an Order under section 20C to the effect that none of the landlord’s costs of these proceedings may be recovered from any lessee within the scope of the section 20C application.

64. For the same reasons the Tribunal makes an Order under Para 5A Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 that none of the landlord’s costs of proceeding may be recovered by way of an administration charge for legal costs against the Lead Applicant. At present, the only clear application is by the Lead Applicant himself. However, he may make a further application on behalf of other applicants within 28 days, provided he is suitably authorised by them to do so.

65. The Tribunal also orders the Respondent to reimburse the application and hearing fees to the Lead Applicant within 28 days. Name: [NAME_6] Date: 8 January 2026

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.

16 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 [NAME_36] permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

© CROWN COPYRIGHT Schedule of Respondents [NAME_2] 604 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_37] & Maksimiljanas Spogis 406 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_40] 608 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_44] 705 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_46] 902 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE]

[NAME_49] 907 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_52] 102 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_55] 204 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_58] 305 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_61] 602 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_65] 703 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_68] 105 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_71] 411 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE]

18 [NAME_74] 612 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_77] 701 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_80] 104 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_83] 404 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_86] 405 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_89] 501 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_92] 603 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]

[NAME_96] 306 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_100] 404 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_104] 408 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_108] 506 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_111] 507 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_115] 20 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_119] 64 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE]

19 [NAME_122] 74 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_125] 80 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_128] 90 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_130] 137 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_133] 182 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE]

[NAME_136] 204 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_139] 408 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_143] 409 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_146] and [NAME_149] 903 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_153] 1002 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_156] 104 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_159] 404 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_163] 313 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE]

20 [NAME_165] 609 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_168] 614 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_172] 709 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] Natalie Liow & Carson Fok 710 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_176] 204 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_178] 107 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_181] 304 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE]

[NAME_185] 602 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_188] & Arthur Orts 603 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_190] 26 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_193] 27 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_196] 59 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_200] 89 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE]

21 [NAME_203] 117 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_205] and [NAME_209] 125 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_212] 183 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_214] 33 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_218] 143 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_221] 104 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_224] and [NAME_227] 307 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_230] 505 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_233] 601 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_236] 703 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

22 [NAME_238] 802 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_241] 807 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [COMPANY_243] ([NAME_245] : Director) 808 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_248] 906 Atlantic Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_252] 101 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_255] 202 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_259] 406 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_261] 504 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_264] 505 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_268] 601 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

23 [NAME_270] 606 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_273] 740 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only YoYotta SSAS Commercial Unit 3 in Block 4 [NAME_217] only [NAME_275] 4 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_278] 6 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_281] 10 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_245] 11 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_284] 14 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_287] 101 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_291] 102 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

24 [NAME_294] 103 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_298] 106 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_300] 108 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_303] and [NAME_307] 203 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_308] 204 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_312] 205 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_316] 215 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_319] 301 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_321] 302 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_324] 307 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

25 [NAME_326] & [NAME_329] 311 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_332] and [NAME_335] 401 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_336] 402 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_339] and [NAME_341] 405 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_344] [NAME_346] and [NAME_348] 406 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_333] [NAME_352] 410 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_356] 414 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_359] [NAME_361] 502 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_363] and [NAME_366] 505 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_369] 509 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

26 [NAME_373] 510 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_375] 601 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_378] 608 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_380] 613 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_383] 713 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_386] 101 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_388] 103 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_391] and [NAME_393] 303 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_395] 304 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_399] 702 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

27 [NAME_402] 7 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_404] 8 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_406] 9 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_409] 10 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_411] 11 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_413] 14 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_417] 15 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_420] 17 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_422] 24 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_425] 203 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

28 [NAME_428] & [NAME_430] 204 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_433] 206 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_435] 208 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_437] 302 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_441] 505 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_446] 509 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_451] 702 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_454] 803 Iverson Point, [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_458] 5 [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_462] 120 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

29 [NAME_468] 153 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_471] 1 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [COMPANY_474] 4 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_475] and [NAME_477] 5 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_479] 15 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_482] and [NAME_485] 39 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_488] 41 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_490] 45 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_492] and [NAME_496] 49 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_475] and [NAME_477] 52 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

30 [NAME_499] and [NAME_502] 53 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_504] and [NAME_506] 54 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_509] 58 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_512] 68 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_515] and [NAME_518] 91 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_520] 97 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_586] and [NAME_587] 105 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_525] 108 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_529] 109 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_234] [NAME_333] 114 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

31 [NAME_308] and [NAME_531] 118 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_533] & Christoph Genzwurker 133 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_536] 134 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_539] and [NAME_542] 85 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_544] and [NAME_547] 147 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_548] 168 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_550] and [NAME_552] 169 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_554] 172 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_557] and [NAME_560] 173 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_561] and [NAME_565] 178 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only

32 [NAME_568] [NAME_570] and [NAME_585] 180 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_574] 3 [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only [NAME_577] 3 [NAME_396] [NAME_20], [POSTCODE] [NAME_217] only