First-tier Tribunal Varies Service Charges and Limits Costs

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Property 115, 32 & 72 [NAME], [ADDRESS], Leeds, [POSTCODE]

Applicants

(1) [NAME]

(2) [NAME] (3) [NAME] (4) [NAME]

Respondent

[COMPANY] number MAN/OODA/LSC/2022/0015 MAN/OODA/LSC/2022/0024 MAN/OODA/LSC/2022/0025

Date of Application 14th February 2022 and 3rd March 2022

Type of Application S27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

S20C Landlord and tenant Act 1985

Paragraph 5A of schedule 11 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Tribunal Members Tribunal Judge, [NAME]

Tribunal Member Jenny Jacobs

Date of Decision

25th July 2023

DECISION and REASONS

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023

DECISION

A. The service charges payable by the Applicants for the period 1/1/2016 to 31/12/2021shall be varied as shown in the Schedule to this order.

B. The Respondent’s costs of this referral to the Tribunal to be added to the service charge account shall be limited to 25%.

C. The Respondent’s costs of these proceedings to be charged against the Applicants as an administration charge shall be limited to 25%.

BACKGROUND

1. The Tribunal has received three applications under s27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Applicants are leaseholders of individual flats and the Respondent is the Management Company.

2. The Application of [NAME] was stayed by the Tribunal at the hearing as the Tribunal was provided with uncontested evidence, confirmed by Ms [NAME] who had attended to represent [NAME], that [NAME] was the subject of a Bankruptcy Order. As such [NAME] has no standing to bring or continue these proceedings without the official receiver (as trustee) becoming, at least, the co-claimant.

3. The Application of [NAME] and [NAME] was made in relation to the years 2016-2021 but subsequent correspondence suggests that their application is in fact limited to the years 2020 onwards, that being the point at which they purchased their flat.

4. The application before the Tribunal by [NAME] was for the determination of the reasonableness and payability of service charges for the years 2016- 2021. The Applicants also seek an order under Section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with these proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the Applicants, together with an order pursuant to Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Schedule 11, Paragraph 5A, reducing or extinguishing the Applicant's liability to pay administration charges in respect of litigation costs.

THE PROPERTY 5. The Tribunal carried out an inspection of the Property on 21 October 2022 attended by [NAME], Director of the Respondent and [NAME] of [NAME]. No evidence was taken at the inspection. The Tribunal was shown the external and internal security cameras, the Electricity Meter Room, the entrance [NAME] including the Green Wall, fire door and electronic noticeboard, the Bin Store, the lifts, one of which was out of order. The Tribunal were taken up in the lift to inspect the

heating pipes, the roof garden/decking. We inspected floors 21, 15, 4, 3 and 2 and were shown water-marked carpets which appeared to be from bathroom leaks. The Tribunal were also taken to the Estate Management Office and shown the monitoring system from that office, including CCTV.

THE LEASE

6. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the Applicant’s lease. The relevant provisions of the Lease for the purposes of the Tribunal are as follows:

THE LAW 7. S47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 states as follows: Landlord’s name and address to be contained in demands for rent etc. (1)Where any written demand is given to a tenant of premises to which this Part applies, the demand must contain the following information, namely— (a) the name and address of the landlord, and (b) if that address is not in England and Wales, an address in England and Wales at which notices (including notices in proceedings) may be served on the landlord by the tenant. (2)Where— (a) a tenant of any such premises is given such a demand, but (b) it does not contain any information required to be contained in it by virtue of subsection (1), then (subject to subsection (3)) any part of the amount demanded which consists of a service charge (“the relevant amount”) shall be treated for all purposes as not being due from the tenant to the landlord at any time before that information is furnished by the landlord by notice given to the tenant.

8. Section 27A(1) of the 1985 Act provides: An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to-

(a) the person by whom it is payable,

(b) the person to whom it is payable,

(c) the amount which is payable,

(d) the date at or by which it is payable, and

(e) the manner in which it is payable.

The Tribunal is “the appropriate tribunal” for these purposes, and it has jurisdiction to make a determination under section 27A of the 1985 Act whether or not any payment has been made.

9. The meaning of the expression “service charge” is set out in section 18(1) of the 1985 Act. It means:

... an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent– (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, or insurance or the landlord’s costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs.

In making any determination under section 27A, the Tribunal must have regard to section 19 of the 1985 Act, subsection (1) of which provides:

Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period- (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.

10. “Relevant costs” are defined for these purposes by section 18(2) of the 1985 Act as:

the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable.

11. The interpretation of those tests is dealt with in a number of cases. In Forcelux Limited v Sweetman1 the Lands Tribunal stated (at para 40):

“The question I have to answer is not whether the expenditure for any

particular service charge items was necessarily the cheapest available, but

whether the charge that was made was reasonably incurred”

12. In [COMPANY] v [NAME] the test was summarised by HHJ Reid QC as meaning that:

“It was not necessary to show that the amount of costs were the cheapest or

that all landlords would have acted the same way.”

13. The question to be decided was summarised in City of [NAME] v [NAME] by HHJ Alice Robinson2 as follows:

“The question is whether the decision . . . was a reasonable one in all the

circumstances, even if other reasonable decisions could also be taken.”

14. By section 27A of the 1985 Act, the Tribunal may determine whether a service charge is payable and if so:

(a)the person by whom it is payable, (b)the person to whom it is payable, (c)the amount which is payable, (d)the date at or by which it is payable, and (e)the manner in which it is payable.

ISSUES

15. The Tribunal is asked to consider the Service Charge years from 2016 to 2021. Issues the Applicants have raised before the Tribunal for determination are as set out in the Scott Schedule Spreadsheet which formed the basis for the structure of the hearing. This schedule contains several hundred individual items; however these were grouped by the Applicants, and it is agreed by the parties that the list of issues is as follows:

a) The [NAME] b) Legal Costs c) EWS1 d) Pre-paid Electricity Meter e) Management Charges f) Reasonableness g) Legal Costs h) [NAME] i) Other miscellaneous issues 9, 10 and 11

16. Item 11 entitled ‘New items’ arose from an application by the Applicants dated 23 December 2022 and was objected to by the Respondent on the basis that the points of dispute are already very numerous and that these points could have been included earlier. The Tribunal concluded that these items did not raise new issues for the Respondent to address, and that there was no detriment to the Respondent in them being included.

17. We are mindful that the Applicant has raised an extremely large number of individual items within each of the larger subheadings. The individual items do not always fall neatly within the same category to be grouped together in our decision- making. We have attempted to take a proportionate approach – both in terms of the amount of time spent on each item within the hearing, and the approach to determining each issue. This means that in some cases we have not dealt with every individual line of the Scott Schedule specifically in our reasoning but have applied general principles based upon the evidence presented to us. Where we did not hear specific oral evidence on a point in the Scott Schedule we have carefully considered the written representations provided to us by both parties and the documents provided to us. We are mindful that the burden of proof is on the Applicant to persuade us on the balance of probabilities that an item they raise is not reasonable or reasonably incurred, and if we do not explicitly say so in relation to every individual item then where we have allowed an item in full it is because we were not persuaded by the evidence presented to us that this threshold had been reached.

18. We observe that many of the Applicants’ complaints are that the conduct of the Respondent does not amount to best value. This is not a requirement, and the test we have applied is whether or not the costs incurred by the Respondent are reasonable and reasonably incurred, not that they are necessarily the very best or cheapest solution to a given situation.

HEARING

19. The hearing took place face to face at the Bradford Tribunal centre on 27 & 28 February and 1st March 2023 with day 1 being used for reading and Days 2 and

3 being used for the oral hearing. [NAME] and [NAME] attended. Ms [NAME], having initially purported to have attended to represent [NAME] instead attended as a witness with the consent of the Respondent. [NAME] of Counsel represented the Respondent. [NAME] and Ms [NAME] from the [NAME] also attended. Their witness was [NAME] of [NAME] who attended by video link.

20. The Tribunal had before it a) Bundle of 1425 pages b) Supplementary bundle of 165 pages c) Bundle of service charge accounts 2016-2021 [NAME] and [NAME] 93 pages d) Additional late evidence provided at the hearing – i.e. Tomlin Orders x2, EWS1 e) Following the hearing and at the request of the Tribunal the parties provided a letter dated 24 March from the [NAME] together with a List of Further Documents/information f) Applicants’ response to that letter and list dated 31 March 2023

EVIDENCE and DISCUSSION

Issue 1 - [NAME]

21. It is common ground between the parties that during the period 2017 to 2020 there was work done to the [NAME] areas of [NAME]. The Applicants’ position as advanced through their written submissions and through the oral representations of [NAME] is that the work to the [NAME] was an upgrade, and therefore outside the scope of the service charge. They also argue that in any event even if it is not an upgrade and is recoverable through the service charge account, it represents an overall project the value of which should have triggered a statutory consultation process, the absence of which limits the recoverability of the invoices to £250 per tenant.

22. The Respondent’s position is that the work done to the [NAME] is renewal of the common parts and therefore the sums concerned are recoverable under paragraph 5.4 of Schedule 4 of the Lease. [NAME] suggests that it is renewal because it is a replacement of what was there before and not a wholly novel construction.

23. The Tribunal was referred to the items set out in the Scott Schedule and an additional invoice for £31,039.20 at page 1129 which was for works to the [NAME] but which had been omitted from the Scott Schedule. The Tribunal was also referred to email communication from the Management Company regarding the [NAME] [page 1117] dated 16 December 2018 which includes before and after photographs and states ‘We have now finished Phase 1 of the [NAME] works. As stated in a previous email the cost of these initial works were covered by an agreed loss adjustment through our insurance. Delivering a brand-new [NAME] for residents was much more cost effective than removing the water damaged flooring and skirting, fully drying out all of the flooring bed and slates, then reinstalling the same floor.

Due to [NAME] high level of workmanship the floor is now level. It was previously out by 4”. We are looking to commence Phase 2 of the [NAME] works early next year. We have already commissioned [NAME] to come up with a lighting design concept to bring out the most from the new [NAME].’

24. A separate communication [page 1117] headed ‘Your Director team: Achievements’ states ‘installed brand new (approx. 20k) [NAME] refurbishment at no cost to leaseholders.’

25. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from [NAME], Property Manager at [NAME] that there were lots of different contractors who came in to look at different aspects of the [NAME] work. [NAME] did not oversee the work or project manage it, with the [NAME] taking the lead, including over whether there were any necessary consultations.

26. List of [NAME] invoices queried by the Applicants Date Amount (£) Contractor Subject of Invoice Page ref 27/11/2017 600 [NAME] 405 15/11/2018 1800 [NAME] design 411 28/11/2018 9123.20 [NAME] hall extras 499 28/11/2018 9123.20 Unknown – no invoice provided. Ledger entry referenced Major Works entrance hall extras 499 4/3/2019 1599.60 [NAME] 412 13/3/2019 75 [NAME] media unit 501 1/11/2019 350 [NAME] structural design Design of lighting support system 415 14/11/2019 22725.36 [NAME] 1 minus 50% already paid design fee 417 14/11/2019 31039.20 [NAME] and installation of lighting 1116 12/08/2020 13458 [NAME] wall 436

27. We first considered whether the works to the [NAME] were repairs or improvements. We note that we did not have the benefit of any direct evidence from the Respondent’s directors to support [NAME]’s assertions. Nor were we provided with any information by the Respondent to set out the decision-making process, or to refute the Applicant’s assertion that the [NAME], as per the photograph was previously a largely plain painted room with basic flooring and lighting and had

become a significantly more elaborate entrance [NAME] with feature ‘green wall’, wood cladding and altered lighting arrangements.

28. We considered the wording at paragraph 5.4 of Part B of Schedule 4 of the Lease which lists as Services for which costs are recoverable through the Service Charge ‘Inspecting, rebuilding, repointing, repairing, cleansing, renewing and otherwise treating as necessary and keeping the Common Parts comprised in the Building and every part thereof in good and substantial repair, order and condition and renewing and replacing all worn or damaged parts thereof.’

29. In our view, and in particular having regard to the before and after photographs we find that a significant proportion of these works went beyond renewing and replacing and were improvements. We find this conclusion to be consistent with the tone and content of the email correspondence sent to residents by the [NAME].

30. We accept that the Respondent was obligated to carry out works to comply with their repairing obligation following the water damage, however it would appear that this work was largely covered through insurance, and therefore not passed on to the tenants through the service charge. We are not presented by the Applicants with queried invoices for flooring, repairs to the ceiling, repainting for example. The works queried by the Applicants instead comprise lighting design, supply and installation of the lighting, the installation of the green wall, and the installation of the electronic noticeboard. In our view this work represents optional improvement.

31. It is clear from the pre-refurbishment photograph that there was adequate lighting in the [NAME] prior to the works being carried out, and no evidence was provided from the Respondents to suggest to the contrary, or that they were advised for safety reasons to renew inadequate lighting. We find the evidence of the Applicant persuasive on this point and therefore find that redesign of the lighting and the associated supply and fitting of that redesign is an improvement – being a new ‘concept to bring out the most from the new [NAME]’. Likewise, the addition of the green wall is not a repair which was necessary to comply with repairing obligations. A repair or renewal of the noticeboard, if indeed that was damaged, would have been a like-for like replacement instead of a £1599.60 installation of an electronic alternative.

32. We therefore disallow the sums listed in the table above and find them to be unrecoverable through the service charge. We have not disallowed the £31.99 for a magnetic noticeboard, as our understanding is that there was a noticeboard in the [NAME] previously and therefore this appears to be a like-for-like replacement/renewal. We note that the Applicants had also queried the absence of compliance with consultation requirements in respect of major works. We note that non-compliance was conceded by the Respondent during the course of the hearing, but it does not arise in our calculations due to our findings above.

Issue 2 – Legal Fees G01LS190

33. This aspect of the claim is brought by the Applicants in respect of the legal fees arising out of legal action initially taken by the Respondent. The Tribunal is not in receipt of the pleadings in this matter and so the full scope of the claim is not before us but it appears that the Respondent commenced proceedings in July 2020 seeking injunctive relief against two Applicant leaseholders ([NAME] and [NAME])

for allegedly interfering with CCTV cameras. [NAME] and [NAME] subsequently issued a Part 20 claim against the Respondent as well as its directors [NAME] and [NAME] individually.

34. The Tribunal was provided with two Tomlin Orders arising in the course of these proceedings, with the consent of both parties. The first dated September 2020 dismissed a claim by the Respondent for an injunction. The second dated 21 October 2022, (by which time the Part20 claim against [NAME] and [NAME] has been issued) stays the claim on a basis which included mutual agreement in respect of conduct concerning CCTV equipment and payment of £120,000 of costs by the leaseholders to the Respondent.

35. The Applicant refers to a series of items in this tab of the Scott Schedule which it says total £176,099.68 for the period up to December 2021. They also reference several items listed under Tab 11 of the Scott Schedule.

36. The Applicants’ position is that a) the CCTV which was the subject matter of this case was installed by the Management Company in breach of the Management Deed. b) The CCTV duplicates monitoring equipment for the whole estate monitored by [NAME] c) The Respondents had previously stated they have no obligation to enforce any terms of the Lease (in relation to a previous exchange of correspondence around pets) d) The Respondent directors claimed payment at £50-75 per hour in relation to this case which the Applicants state is unreasonable. e) An element of the sums invoiced in respect of legal fees related to the person defence of the directors and this element of the costs has not been split. f) The charges include other matters collected together in a file entitled ‘nuisance leaseholders’

37. The Respondent’s position is that it was reasonable to take and defend the proceedings, that the charges are recoverable under the terms of the Lease. [NAME] accepts that the Directors were not separately represented.

38. Our starting point was to consider the terms of the Lease. At Clause 5.1.2 the Management Company covenants with the Tenant to use its reasonable endeavours to provide any of the other services set out in the Schedule 4 that the Management Company reasonably considers necessary or appropriate at any time. Paragraph 7.15 of Schedule 4 includes ‘any costs imposed on the Management Company and/or the Landlord in solving any dispute with any tenant or other cost reasonably and properly incurred by the Management Company and/or the Landlord and otherwise not recovered in taking or defending proceedings (including any arbitration) arising out of any lease of any part of the Estate or any claim by or against tenant thereof or by any third party against the Management Company and/or the Landlord as owners, tenant or occupier of any part of the Estate.’

39. It is common ground between the parties that this was a dispute between the Management Company and a tenant ([NAME]) and we note from the Tomlin Order that an agreement was reached which imposed a range of obligations on all parties. We are not persuaded that the Applicants have provided us with any evidence

to support the assertion that it was unreasonable for the Management Company to take these proceedings. It may have been possible to deal with the matter differently, and/or there may or may not have been merit to arguments on either side, but reasonableness in taking proceedings is not contingent upon them being unequivocally successful.

40. We note [NAME]’s argument that the CCTV cameras were placed on the outside of [NAME] in what he asserts is a breach of the Management Agreement. This, we would suggest, is an argument which goes to the merits or otherwise of the original claim which has since been the subject of the Tomlin Order. We are not in a position to unpick the merits or otherwise of the case, we merely note that the elements of the claim fall within the scope of the Service Charge and therefore reasonable costs arising from taking the claim and/or resolving the dispute are recoverable under the terms of the Lease.

41. Similarly, we find that there is no merit in [NAME]’s argument that other breaches have not been pursued by the Respondent – the fact of the matter is that the Respondent is entitled to make such decisions as they see fit to ensure the maintenance and proper and convenient management and running of the Estate (as per para 7.14 of Schedule 4) and we are not persuaded that this assertion of possible past conduct causes us to conclude that this particular decision was unreasonable.

42. We have given careful thought to whether we consider the extent of the costs was reasonable. We accept that they were reasonably incurred by [NAME], and that they have been properly invoiced on the basis of time recording. We have insufficient information to conclude that the costs themselves are not reasonable, and we appreciate that the level of legal costs is in part a reflection of the way in which both parties to a piece of litigation conduct themselves and therefore may be in part out of the Respondent’s control. However, we are concerned that there appears to be a lack of scrutiny by the Directors of the level of legal costs being incurred, which might have been higher had they been spending their own money rather than that of the leaseholders. Nevertheless, we do not make any deduction from the legal costs on this basis.

43. However, it is noteworthy that whilst the initial proceedings were brought solely by the Management Company, the defence of the Part20 claim was by the Directors personally and we note that the Tomlin Order includes a significant number of obligations which have correspondingly been agreed to by the Directors personally. Indeed, the obligations on the Management Company themselves within the Tomlin Order are relatively minor.

44. We do not see any provision in the Lease which would enable the cost of the personal representation of the Directors to be recoverable through the service charge. Indeed, precisely this type of circumstance is generally covered by Directors’ Insurance – the cost of which is already borne by leaseholders through their service charge (e.g. page 187 – Directors and officer’s insurance). We conclude from the fact that [NAME] felt they were able to act for both the Management Company and the Directors, rather than sending either or both to seek separate advice and representation, that their positions were compatible and not in direct conflict with one another. Nevertheless, we do not accept that the legal costs incurred were identical irrespective of them being represented as part of the claim. Instructions will need to have been taken from them in their personal capacity in addition to instructions taken from the Management

Company, even in the absence of conflict, and the Tomlin Order reflects the extent to which the agreement reached significantly reflects obligations which they personally have accepted.

45. As a consequence, we find that not all of these legal costs fall within the scope of the Lease. No breakdown of these costs has been provided by the Respondent, or by their Solicitors, and therefore we are left in the unenviable position of having to estimate the extent to which these costs include an element of Directors’ personal representation. We have by necessity had to take a broad overview in the absence of other information and estimate that 25% of the legal costs was solely attributable to the Directors. We discount this element of the Service Charge to this extent accordingly. The Applicants raise the issue in their written submissions that these proceedings continued up to November 2022 and therefore the legal costs for the 2022 Service Charge year are not yet known. This application concerns Service Charge years 2016 to 2021 and therefore we are unable to provide any determination in respect of 2022.

Issue 3 - EWS1 46. The Applicants through [NAME] raised a concern about the cladding report for [NAME] being in their view ‘inadequate’ as they considered it was carried out by an unqualified individual and therefore the money spent on the report was in the Applicants’ view inappropriately and unreasonably incurred. [NAME] informed the Tribunal that properties within [NAME] were impossible to sell as a consequence of mortgage lenders not accepting the EWS1 certificate as [NAME] who carried out the work is not a Chartered Engineer with the Institute of Fire Engineers.

47. The EWS1 report was provided to the Tribunal during the course of the hearing. We note that the report is in the form as devised by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and that [NAME] is a Chartered Building Surveyor. It is not necessary to be a Fire Engineer to complete this report, merely that the signatory is able to self- certify that they have expertise in the assessment of the fire risk presented by external wall materials. The cost of the report was in the region of £5000. We are informed that the cost of getting a report carried out by a Chartered Engineer with the Institute of Fire Engineers would have been in the region of £30,000. Whilst it would appear from the email correspondence from [NAME] at [NAME] dated 17 August 2022, that some lenders are erroneously deeming reports from a Chartered Surveyor to be invalid, that is a decision on the part of the lender, not a reflection of an unreasonable decision by the Respondent. They could equally well have been criticised for incurring the additional costs of having a report from a Fire Engineer at 6 times the cost of a Chartered Surveyor. In our view they have instructed a suitably qualified individual to conduct a piece of work and have paid them at a cost commensurate with their qualifications.

48. The Respondent argues that the costs of inspecting the property potentially fall under paragraph 5.4 of Schedule 4 of the Lease. We also find them to be recoverable under paragraph 7.14 as reasonable and proper expenses incurred by the Management Company and/or the Landlord in and about the maintenance and proper and convenient running of the Estate. We find this sum to be reasonable and recoverable through the service charge.

Issue 4 - Pre-paid Electricity Meter

49. The Applicants claim that the sum of £14,099.41 was not reasonably incurred in respect of the installation of pre-payment electricity meter. It is common ground between the parties that whilst the Leaseholders themselves get their electricity in the traditional individually metered manner, the previous arrangement at [NAME] was that there were also 2 other meters – one of which provided the supply to [ADDRESS] 1 (run by [NAME]), and the other which provided the supply to the [NAME], [ADDRESS] 3 and the shared access road.

50. The Respondent’s position is that the previous arrangement required the Respondent to make upfront payments for electricity consumed by third parties in excess of £30,000 per year. They argue that this presented a financial risk to both the Management Company and the leaseholders were there to be default on these payments.

51. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from [NAME] that there had been an issue with regular outages and spikes over a 5-6 week period at [NAME] which had triggered the change in the arrangements. It is common ground between the parties that outages were a real problem although there was disagreement about the cause. The Tribunal heard from [NAME] that the spikes were a safety concern due to overloading of the supply cable and an external electrical engineer was instructed and reported that the spikes were from AML He stated that various solutions were considered including putting a separate meter for AML into the car park, but that this would have cost £100,000 due to the need to dig up the road. He stated that in the end the decision was taken to follow the expert advice and to make the building safe due to the regularity of the issue. [NAME], on the other hand, asserted that the spikes and outages had nothing to do with AML but followed testing of the fire safety systems at [NAME], and that the engineer had, in error, reset the automatic testing of the wet riser system to happen once an hour rather than once a week. This overloaded the system and caused the outages.

52. The Tribunal was referred to correspondence at page 228 of the bundle from [NAME] dated 17 February 2017 requesting a payment of £1000 from Assured Site Services (AML) to monitor the supply as part of efforts to resolve the issue. We were also referred to a report on Sub-metering from [NAME] dated 7 February 2020 [supplementary bundle]. This report states at Section 7.0 ‘Recommendations’ – ‘Based on the Client’s requirements the most practical solution would be to select the MeterPay prepaid sub-metering system on both the Management suite and Arches car park C-G supply. This system will enable all 3rd party Customers to stay in control of their energy usage and payments without requiring access to the meter. It also means MeterPay will manage the payment process on the Client’s behalf making sure funds are transferred appropriately between each party.’

53. [NAME] informed the Tribunal that in his view the replacement of the previous metering arrangement was a detriment to the leaseholders, the cost of electricity to AML increased, and as a consequence the cost of car parking for leaseholders such as [NAME] in the AML car park had also increased. He stated that AML was paying monthly so there was no risk of default. The Scott Schedule also includes under Applicants’ comments that AML now has its power cut sporadically when [NAME] forgets to keep credit on its assigned meter and that the installation of these meters has created risk to Leeds train Station.

54. We firstly considered whether these charges were recoverable under the terms of the Lease. We are satisfied that the charge is potentially recoverable under paragraphs 7.11, 7.13 and 7.14 of Schedule 4.

55. We next considered whether we were persuaded that the charges associated with the installation of pre-payment meters were not reasonable or reasonably incurred. We find that it was reasonable for the Respondent to take the decision which they took in respect of installation of the pre-payment meters. We accept the evidence of [NAME] that there were concerns around spikes in electricity usage which were compromising safety. We also accept the submissions of the Respondent that there was a risk associated with non-payment by third parties which would have had to be borne ultimately by the leaseholders. The fact that this risk had not at that point in time materialised through actual non-payment does not mean that it did not exist as a risk which it was reasonable to mitigate against. The detriment to which [NAME] refers appears in large part to be a detriment to AML, which is not a leaseholder. We do not find this argument to be persuasive and we consider that the installation of pre- payment meters, whilst not necessarily the only possible solution to the problems faced by [NAME], was a reasonable decision to have taken, in line with the independent professional report, and that the costs associated with it were reasonable and reasonably incurred and are therefore recoverable through the service charge.

Issue 5 - Management Charges 56. The Applicant queries charges totalling £47,785.49, the multiple bases of the complaint being as follows:

i. the contract with director [NAME] for reading the energy meters is a

long-term qualifying agreement.

ii. there are conflicts of interest leading to leaseholders paying more than is

necessary for services.

iii. there is an absence of supporting invoices.

iv. Leaseholders are already paying for CCTV through [NAME]

57. The Respondent states that the sums paid to director [NAME] for meter reading is expenditure incurred pursuant to Schedule 4 Part B paragraph 5.14 being costs relating to the supply of water and heating to the building and Part D, paragraph 7.11 being the provision of a service which in the Respondent’s opinion is reasonable to provide. The Respondent states in its response within the Scott Schedule that [NAME] and [NAME] were previously engaged on an ad-hoc basis to read the water and heat energy meters monthly and provide these meter readings to the managing agents. The managing agents were then responsible for analysing the data and preparing bills. However, the Respondents claim that errors consistently occurred, and this resulted in inaccurate bills being produced and arrears accruing. The Respondent states that [NAME] put forward a proposal to take on this work and this proposal was approved unanimously by the RMC in 2016.

58. The Respondent’s position is that [NAME] is engaged by the Respondent to read the 159 water meters and 159 heat energy meters on a monthly basis on 1st of the month, analyse the data, process communal water and gas bills and prepare yearly heat/water estimates for all 159 apartments including year-end reconciliations. They state that this work has resulted in a historic water bill totalling £118,000 being written off in September 2020 and £42,000 being credited back to leaseholders. They also state that there has been no increase in the charge for the provision of this service

within the last four years, it is still currently below the amount leaseholders were charged back in 2016.

59. [NAME] referred the Tribunal to the case of Corvan (Properties) Ltd v Abdel-Mahmoud [2018] EWCA Civ 1102. He states that the arrangement with [NAME] is a Long-Term Qualifying Agreement and therefore should have been subject to consultation.

60. The fact that the arrangement with [NAME] has continued for more than a year does not of itself make it a Long-term Qualifying Agreement. We have not been provided with any form of agreement for this work by either party. This leads us to conclude that a formal agreement does not exist, but instead that there is an informal arrangement which has persisted for a prolonged duration. We are not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that there is an agreement here with a term which exceeds 12 months, and in the absence of evidence that there is a contract period of more than a year we are unable to reach the conclusion that there is a long-term agreement and therefore we do not consider [NAME]’s arguments about the need for consultation any further.

61. [NAME] accepted when questioned that the meter reading service was being provided. He argued that there was no tendering process when [NAME] was appointed and that payments to [NAME] were now more expensive than payments to the two previous companies combined. He referred the Tribunal to page 406 and 407 being the invoices from [NAME] dated 5 April 2016 for £594 for professional services in respect of [NAME] and [NAME] dated 5 February 2016 for £3365.82 the narrative for which states ‘Carry out fixed network meter reading service including monthly reporting to 320 meters for the period 1 February 2016 to 31 January 2017. The Respondent’s comments in the Scott Schedule confirm that there are 159 apartments and therefore 159 water meters and 159 heat energy meters. We take the 320 in the [NAME] invoice to cover all of these plus the other 2 meters which were previously providing supply to [NAME] prior to the installation of pre-payment meters.

62. We share the Applicant’s concerns that there are no invoices for this work carried out by [NAME], and also that there therefore appears to be no scrutiny. The charges are levied by [NAME] monthly although [NAME] contends that the readings are only done twice a year. We note that it is not disputed that this is a service which is taking place at least to some extent, or that it is a service which leaseholders previously paid external contractors to do. We know it is taking place as reconciliation payments have arisen as a consequence of the work done by [NAME]. We accept that the cost of providing this service is recoverable through the service charge under the terms of the Lease. There is nothing to preclude the service being carried out by a Director, if the service is conducted competently and for a reasonable cost. [NAME] argues that the cost to Leaseholders previously was far less previously. [NAME] submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the comparative costings were not comparing like with like. [NAME] states in his witness statement that the readings from [NAME] and [NAME] were then sent to the previous managing agents [NAME] who were responsible for analysing data and calculating the gas and water bills. We have no information from [NAME] as to

precisely what he was doing or for how long which justified what appears on the face of it to be an increase from approximately £4000 per year to over £9500 in 2017. In our view a reasonable sum for this exercise would be in the region of £500 per month or £6000 per year in 2017 and therefore we have allowed the sum up to this amount in 2017 and allowed an increase over time.

63. We note that the Applicants also cite under this heading a number of items of expenditure for which they state that there are no invoices. Many of these items are small day to day petty cash type expenses for which it is not, in our view, unusual for there to be an absence of invoices, although clearly full documentation would be best practice. The Applicant’s complaint appears in part to be that the standard of documentation is not all that it should have been and is below a reasonable standard. Again, the requirement for a Management Company is not that they meet a standard of perfection, and absence of an invoice may be one element which the tribunal takes into account when considering whether it is persuaded that a charge is reasonable, but it is not of itself determinative. Some of the items listed by the Applicants do in fact have invoices, such as the storage box item for £15 and disbursements of £528 paid to [NAME] and we find these to be allowable in full.

64. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from [NAME] that nobody specifically checks whether the amount of time spent by directors on particular tasks are reasonable. Directors send an email logging their hours to [NAME] at the management company, and [NAME] stated that he would have ‘a ballpark idea’ of the number of hours and he has not been aware of any issues. He stated ‘there will be a paper trail’

65. We note that the Respondents argue that Professional and Administration fees for [NAME] of some £5000 are recoverable, being described by the Respondents in the Scott Schedule as ‘4-8 hours per week for around 2 years’. This represents an hourly rate of around £10 to £15 per hour. We consider this to be a reasonable hourly rate for this administration work in respect of a legal dispute carried out by a non-legally qualified person and we allow it accordingly.

66. We accept the Respondent’s submissions contained within the Scott Schedule on all of the points contained within this tab of the Scott Schedule as we are not presented with any contrary evidence by the Applicant that the services were not provided, or items not purchased or that the costs themselves were not reasonable.

67. The exception to this is that we have disallowed the sum of £49.50 which the Respondent states was for a lockable notice board purchased for the entrance which the Management Company retains but has not installed. We note that this was purchased in 2020 and we conclude that the fact it has not been installed in the subsequent 3 years suggests that it was unnecessary and therefore not reasonably incurred. We have also disallowed the sum of £80 for the installation of digital signage and lift signage. This appears to be work carried out by [NAME] for 2 hours [supplementary documents item 32]. In an email to [NAME] dated 18 September 2018 he states ‘Please could you transfer me a sundries reimbursement of £80. This can be transferred to my usual account. This is for the 2 hours I spent on site yesterday installing digital signage, lift signage and safety barriers for the

lift lock off and [NAME] works.’ There is no corresponding email chain, or ‘paper trail’ as [NAME] suggests to suggest that he was requested to do this work, following an identified need, or that there was any scrutiny of the work that was done, the time that it took, or the quality of the work delivered. [NAME] did not provide to the Tribunal any statement to give additional information as to the way in which he was engaged to carry out such work. Nor, in our view, is £40 per hour for what appears to be ‘odd jobs’ a reasonable hourly rate. We note that [NAME] makes a number of references to concerns about conflict of interest, and although we do not agree with his assessment in all cases, we are nevertheless concerned that an absence of oversight means it is possible that sums are being charged to the service charge account which are not reasonably incurred. We are persuaded that this is the case in respect of this item and consequently disallow it.

68. We similarly considered the sum of £1211.40 paid to [NAME] – this is itemised in an email to [NAME] dated 28 March 2019 which lists expenses for Emails, time spent on court claims and other matters at £75/hour and annual Acrobat Pro subscription for digital redaction of emails for SAR (Subject Access Requests) emails. He states that a number of these items can be ‘funded by the Professional/Legal Fees if that’s possible’ and that ‘All disbursements including the hourly rate for dealing with the paperwork for the claim against AML + processing subject access requests (SARs) on behalf of the RMC have been authorised by all directors’

69. [NAME] gave evidence that this item related to a claim against AML to which the management Company failed to attend. He also gave evidence that some of the Subject Access Requests which were made were not responded to.

70. We are concerned again that there is an absence of oversight here as to the time being spent, and we are not persuaded that unanimity amongst the directors as to the hourly rate they consider appropriate to pay themselves for sundry work renders that rate reasonable. £75/per hour is, in our view, an excessively high hourly rate for a director to apparently be taking preparatory steps in litigation, particularly against a backdrop of non-itemised legal costs with a catch-all heading of ‘nuisance leaseholders’ and also within the context of extremely high solicitors’ costs. This is not a situation where directors were spending their time on legal matters instead of instructing solicitors in order to save costs for leaseholders. [NAME] did not attend the hearing or provide a statement to the Tribunal to explain how his day-to-day involvement with such activities was scrutinised, or what qualifications and experience he had to charge £75/ hour for such work in connection with litigation when lawyers had already been instructed, nor was any information provided as to why this work was necessary and therefore the charge reasonably incurred. It is not suggested by the Respondents that he is legally qualified or has specific expertise in Data Subject Access Requests which would justify such a high fee. We accept the evidence of [NAME] on this point, and we find that the charges are unreasonable and relate to services either unnecessarily rendered, duplicative or delivered at a substandard level. We disallow the entirety of this item.

71. For the same reasons as set out above, we disallow the sum of £225 as relating to emails and SARS charged out at £75/hour which we find to be excessive and unreasonable.

72. We have also disallowed the sum of £329 in respect of a CCTV camera paid to [NAME] and £100 for cloud CCTV services. The Tribunal considers the issue of CCTV cameras more fully elsewhere but we find the evidence of [NAME] (set out fully below) to be persuasive that there was over-provision of CCTV and duplication of services and we therefore conclude that this is an unnecessary and unreasonable expense given the level of CCTV in place at the Property and therefore in our view this is not reasonably incurred and not recoverable under the service charge.

Issue 6 – Reasonableness 73. The Applicants list a large number of items totalling £57,012.60 under this heading. The issues which are raised in respect of these items include:

i. whether contracts for e.g. cleaning are long term qualifying agreements

ii. whether there are conflicts of interest associated with contracts and/or the

individuals are suitably qualified

iii. whether other items were reasonably incurred including a. CCTV b. Paxton Fob System c. Supply data to Yorkshire water – [NAME] d. Lift Contract

74. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from [NAME] that the cleaning contract was put out to tender. It was awarded to [NAME], which is a company run by one of the Leaseholders. He states that the arrangement makes sense as it is an excellent service with no additional call out charges. He stated that ‘it works and it is not astronomical’.

75. The Applicants argue that a wide range of agreements entered into by the Respondent are long-term qualifying agreements for which no consultation has taken place. They cite

i. [NAME] – contract provided at page 128 supplementary

bundle.

ii.[NAME] – no written contract

iii.[NAME]

iv [NAME] meter reading (dealt with above)

76. Taking these in turn – the [NAME] contract dated 12 May 2016 is stated to commence on 1 April 2016. Clause 5.1 specifies that the agreement is for an initial period of 364 days from the Commencement Date and shall continue until determined by either party serving 1 months’ notice. This wording is similar to that in the Corvan case to which [NAME] refers the Tribunal. Whilst the contract period is expressly stated to be for a period of 364 days the clause goes on to state that the same contract period is ‘to continue until determined’. The word ‘shall’ in clause 5 effectively introduces a mandatory requirement that the contract will continue beyond the initial 364 days without specifying for how long.

77. However, the critical distinction in our view between this agreement and that in the Corvan case is that at its shortest the Corvan agreement was for a term of 1 year

and a day – and thus an agreement for a term of more than 12 months. In this case at its shortest the agreement is for a term of 364 days plus 1 day – i.e. this is not an agreement for a term which must exceed 12 months even if the reality is that in practice it has done so, or indeed that the intention may have been that the managing agent was to do so. We reject [NAME]’s argument in respect of this long-term qualifying agreement.

78. We reject his argument in respect of the other contracts with [NAME] and [NAME] which he suggests are long-term qualifying agreements as there is no written agreement provided. In the absence of any evidence to support his claim that the minimum term of these contracts exceeds 12 months we are not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that they are long term qualifying agreements. They do not become so simply by virtue of having subsisted for more than 12 months.

79. [NAME] also challenged the cleaning invoices to [NAME] stating that they were to a connected party thereby creating a conflict of interest in conflict with the RICS code of practice. He does not dispute that the cleaning costs are of themselves potentially recoverable under paragraph 5.3 of part B of Schedule 4 of the Lease and nor does he dispute that the cleaning which was the subject matter of the contract took place. He queries why there are additional charges in relation to dog faeces and vomit over and above the standard contract. In our view items of this nature would need cleaning as a matter of urgency and at a level of rigor in excess of a standard contract clean. We do not find these additional charges to be unreasonable, and note that the veracity of them is not disputed. [NAME] does not provide any alternative quotes for the work. We are mindful that [NAME] states that it is not possible to provide an alternative quote as the terms of the contract are not known, however the nature and extent of the common areas are known, and it would be possible to obtain a quote on a range of frequencies if that is uncertain. [NAME] also argues that the cost is not reasonable because it is more expensive than the previous contractor. We reject this argument. It is not incumbent on the Management Company to contract with the lowest cost provider. Indeed, it is possible that a Management Company could change from a low cost provider to a higher cost one because the level of service provided at the lower fee was inadequate. We draw no conclusion of unreasonableness purely on the basis of an increase in cost. We accept the evidence of [NAME] that the service level being provided is satisfactory and that the arrangement is financially reasonable. The burden of proof to show that these charges are unreasonable or not reasonably incurred is on the Applicants and we are not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that these charges are unrecoverable and we allow them in full.

Conflicts of Interest/suitability of contractors. 80. [NAME] expressed significant concern that contracts had been awarded to individuals and companies connected with leaseholders. He also expressed concern that [NAME] was not appropriately qualified to conduct the work he was engaged to do. At no point did [NAME] suggest that the work invoiced by these companies/individuals was not being carried out, was not to a reasonable standard or that he had alternative quotations which suggested that the sums being charged to the service charge account were not reasonable. We have not gone through these items line by line in our reasoning, as we do not find there to be anything further to say on these items other than that we allow them in full. Whilst a close connection to the recipient of a contract is cause for careful scrutiny of the service being provided, there

does not appear to be any concern that the leaseholders are not getting the service that is being paid for here, nor that the cost of these services is unreasonably high.

CCTV 81. [NAME] gave evidence that the [NAME] report had recommended 9 CCTV cameras. He stated that [NAME]’ contract was to install 9 new cameras and replace one other pre-existing one but subsequently more CCTV cameras have been installed to the point where the building now has 28 CCTV cameras compared to other buildings which have only 3. He stated that previously CCTV monitoring was done through [NAME] and was virtually 24/7 with the exception of short breaks or dealing with e.g. package deliveries and that a charge is still paid by leaseholders for CCTV monitoring by [NAME] security guards, but they are effectively being paid to look at blank screens as the feed to those cameras has been turned off following the installation of the new system. [NAME] stated that the new system is looked at 3-4 times per day by [NAME] but there is no longer live monitoring. He stated that the charge for this monitoring is £52.76 per hour paid to [NAME].

82. [NAME] stated that he did not disagree with the [NAME] recommendation for 10 cameras – as whilst even this in his view is a large number for a small area, he accepts the recommendation of a professional management company however he states that there are now 28 cameras installed and yet despite previously monitoring inside and out, there is no longer continual interior monitoring.

83. [NAME] stated that the Respondent’s position was that the service previously provided by [NAME] was not satisfactory and covered some areas and not others and broke down. He stated that better CCTV coverage was necessary due to anti-social behaviour. He stated that whilst different views could be taken on the level of CCTV the decision taken by the Management Company was not unreasonable.

84. The Tribunal observed on its inspection of the Property and Estate that there were blank screens within the monitoring facility within the [NAME] site office which we were informed would previously have displayed [NAME].

85. The [NAME] Service Charge Accounts includes an Estate Charge to [NAME]. This includes a charge for Security provision [page 322] of which [NAME] pays its proportionate share of 29.85990%. It is not in dispute that this includes provision of a security guard service which patrols the estate. It is not in dispute that it historically included CCTV monitoring from the Estate Office on a virtually 24 hour basis. It is also not in dispute that the charge to the Leaseholders for this service through [NAME] has continued irrespective of the decision on additional CCTV taken by the Respondent.

86. We found the evidence of [NAME] to be persuasive on this point. We have given careful consideration to [NAME]’s submissions but of course he is not in a position to give evidence on these points, and we note that [NAME] does not deal with concerns about anti-social behaviour and the need for additional CCTV in his witness statement despite him having been involved with the building since 2016. We accept that the service being provided prior to the installation of the additional cameras was of a reasonable level and was subject to a more comprehensive level of scrutiny and live monitoring than the larger array of cameras now installed. We accept his evidence that the Leaseholders have been charged for additional equipment which was unnecessary and have also been charge additional sums for a lower level of service,

and continue to be charged for the previous level of monitoring despite the cameras no longer transmitting images to the [NAME]. We have disallowed the cost of installation of additional cameras and disallowed the cost of the monitoring of the additional cameras which are in our view unnecessary.

Paxton Fob system 87. The Applicants dispute the charge of £7419.79 for a Paxton Fob system plus all the follow-up costs resulting from the change in the system. [NAME] gave evidence that the previous fob system was functional, it was paid for through the existing [NAME] service charge and it was easy and cheap to replace a fob which would be obtained from the [NAME]. The new system he stated required a more expensive replacement fob to be ordered through [NAME].

88. The comments from the Respondent in the Scott Schedule argue that the previous system was old and outdated and created a security risk.

89. In our view we were not persuaded that any difficulties with the previous system through [NAME] were such as to justify wholesale replacement of the system. In particular we cannot see how this can be justified when the previous charge for fobs etc within security remains payable by leaseholders. We note that there does not appear to have been any attempt to reduce the level of charge being paid by leaseholders for the previous system rendered redundant by the replacement. Instead leaseholders appear to be paying twice. We therefore do not think that this charge is reasonable and therefore do not find it to be recoverable through the service charge.

Supply Data to Yorkshire Water

90. This appears to be an additional £1600 charge to [NAME] in addition to the sum of £10,571.52 which he had already invoiced in respect of meter readings and reconciliations. It is billed at £50/hour for 32 hours. We have already made a finding in respect of what we consider to be a reasonable sum for the meter reading and reconciliation services which [NAME] was providing in respect of the 159 water meters and 159 heat energy meters and therefore we disallow this sum in its entirety as being unnecessary and unreasonable.

Lift Maintenance Contract 91. It is common ground between the parties that one of the two lifts was out of service for a protracted period of time. The Applicants argue that there should have been a reduction in the cost of the maintenance contract negotiated on behalf of Leaseholders as a consequence of the reduction in service. We have no information whether such a negotiation was attempted and was unsuccessful. There is no obligation on the Respondent to take such steps, and it is not disputed that the sums charged to the service charge account were the sums invoiced by the Lift company and that they are recoverable under the terms of the Lease. This is not a situation where a rebate has been negotiated and not passed on to the leaseholders. It would be wrong and inappropriate for us to expect with imperfect hindsight an outcome which may be apparently desirable but may or may not have been available. Whilst we can fully understand the frustrations of the Applicants that one of the two lifts was out of action for a long time (and indeed was out of action when the Tribunal inspected) we are not persuaded that these charges are unreasonable or not reasonably incurred.

Other

92. There are a large number of other complaints raised by the Applicants which we do not find to be substantiated by the evidence placed before us. However, exceptions to this are as follows:

93. We considered the charge of £380 for the ‘virtual AGM’ preparation. The Tribunal heard evidence from [NAME] and [NAME] that this AGM never took place. Leaseholders were told that it would not be an in-person AGM. They received an email that a virtual AGM was taking place but no Teams invitation or link to attend remotely. [NAME] stated that he does not dispute the charges in relation to Mail Chimp as they received a vote ballot form through Mail Chimp but he does dispute the TeamViewer charges as this should have been for virtual attendance at the meeting. He stated that the AGM has been non-quorate for the last 3 years with a participation rate of 12%. [NAME] argues that the AGM was scheduled, preparation was needed and therefore the time charged by [NAME] was time properly spent in discharge of his duties. We disagree that 7.5 hours is a reasonable length of time spent preparing for an AGM to which no invitations to attend were sent. We disallow this sum in its entirety.

94. We considered the charge of £300 for additional security. We note that security is already provided and being paid for by leaseholders through the [NAME] estate charge. We were persuaded by the Applicants that it was unreasonable to duplicate this charge in this way and we therefore disallow it.

Issue 7 - Legal Costs 95. These costs predominantly relate to legal advice obtained by the Respondent relating to a potential claim against AML in relation to payment for costs arising out of the testing/maintenance of electricity submeters with the exception of a couple of items which are sums payable to the directors themselves. It is not disputed by the Applicants that legal fees are potentially recoverable under the terms of the Lease, the aspect which they dispute is that the Respondent did not ultimately attend court or present any evidence and the case was dismissed and therefore they dispute the reasonableness in incurring these costs. In our view it is again inappropriate for us to attempt to step behind a separate piece of litigation about which we know very little and reach a view of merits, or appropriateness of pursuing a claim. However, we do note that there is a running theme in this matter of significant legal costs being incurred and charged back through the service charge account. This could be due to either the conduct of Leaseholders, or the readiness of the Management Company to use litigation as a tool with which to settle disputes, in the knowledge that ultimately the leaseholders will fund this approach. We would hope that neither of these possibilities continues to persist as the sums incurred on legal fees in relation to this Property are extraordinarily high. However, the question for us is to consider whether, on the balance of probabilities, we are persuaded that they are not reasonable or have not been reasonably incurred and we are not persuaded by the Applicants that this is the case, regrettable as the sums incurred may be. Regret is not the same as unreasonable and we therefore find ourselves with no alternative but to allow them in so far as they are fees paid to [NAME]. We do not accept that the sum of £500 paid to [NAME] for CCTV evidence retrieval is a sum reasonably incurred. This seems to us to be an inflated cost which is not reasonably payable.

Issue 8 – [NAME]

96. It is not disputed that the Respondent has an obligation to pay the Estate Charge as demanded by [NAME] under the Management Service Deed. This is set out at Part C (paragraph 6 ) of Schedule 4 to the Lease.

97. The Applicants’ concerns are twofold – firstly that the amount paid to [NAME] is not scrutinised or approved by the Management Company before paying them – therefore Leaseholders could be paying for items which are unreasonable but because they are second hand transactions, they cannot see the detail of the costs being incurred. The second element of their complaint is that the charges have remained static despite the services which [NAME] have received being reduced – i.e. with the removal of CCTV monitoring, removal of BMS fob programming and other elements raised by Applicants including removal of parcel holding, key holding, lighting and the road being in a state of disrepair. They also raise concern about £373,208 spent by [NAME] on legal fees.

98. We share the concern of the Applicants about the lack of scrutiny. We note that [NAME] confirmed that the sums invoiced by [NAME] are not scrutinised by the Property Management Company. It appears that they are simply being passed on to the Leaseholders without being subject to careful consideration as to the validity of the charges contained therein. However, that absence of scrutiny is not of itself evidence that the charges are unreasonable. The burden is on the Applicant and we are not persuaded that the charges themselves are unreasonable or not reasonably incurred. We note the Applicants concerns that the charges have remained constant despite a diminution in service level being provided. We have reflected this already though having disallowed elements of the service charge which in our view duplicated items already being paid for through the [NAME]. Therefore, we find the [NAME] estate Charge to be allowable in full. Whilst the notion that it would be the subject of greater challenge and scrutiny in future appears attractive it is of course possible that to introduce a higher level of scrutiny would itself incur further costs to Leaseholders which they may not wish for.

Issues 9, 10 and 11 – other miscellaneous items. 100. Many of these have been dealt with under the headings above – e.g. the invoices from [NAME]. Several other items raise issues which are outside the scope of our jurisdiction, such as whether or not leaseholders are running businesses from their apartments, and whether or not the Respondent does or does not choose to pursue such matters. These are not matters for us and we do not detain ourselves further with items outside our jurisdictional remit. We accept the evidence of [NAME] that [NAME] provided services within the building to a reasonable standard, that the costs were reasonable and reasonably incurred. We allow the items under Tab 9 in full, with the exception of the fob costs which are discussed elsewhere in this decision.

101. We note the distress and concern expressed by the Applicants in relation to them having been blocked from access to the roof terrace for a period of time. The request for service charge not to be payable by affected leaseholders and/or damages in the sum of £100 per day for being blocked from entering the building and £50 per day for being blocked from entering the garden appears to be a claim for damages arising out of what the Applicants suggest is a breach of covenant. This goes beyond the scope of the application before us which is to determine the reasonableness and payability of the service charge. Again, we can take this aspect of the Applicants’’ claim no further within these proceedings. We allow the items under Tab 10 in full

being not persuaded by the Applicants that the items to which they refer were unreasonable or not reasonably incurred. We note the Respondent’s references to specific invoices in their comments in the Scott Schedule and we accept this evidence.

102. Tab 11 is entailed ‘new items’ within that we have disallowed the £350 of live CCTV monitoring by [NAME] for reasons set out previously – both that a charge is already being paid for security and CCTV monitoring through [NAME], and also that 7 hours of monitoring at £50 per hour is an excessive rate. We also accept the oral evidence give by [NAME] that [NAME] does not monitor the new CCTV system constantly. This was not disputed by the Respondents – indeed given the number of other commitments [NAME] seems to have within the Property it is perhaps unsurprising that he is unable to do so.

103. We have also disallowed a further £477.60 paid to [NAME] in relation to [NAME] for the reasons set out earlier in this decision. We note that the £3600 which is described as relating to 2 hours directors phone call with [NAME] is in fact 72 hours of work at £50/hour for [NAME] with 11 hours of mediation also being attended by [NAME] at £50/hour. This appears to be in relation to the legal proceedings at issue 2. Again, we have no information from the Directors concerned what this charge was for, what work was done by them that required their involvement, why both of them needed to be present at the mediation, why this particular piece of work, if indeed necessary, justified a charge of £50 per hour in addition to the legal representation which was already being paid for. We are not persuaded on the balance of probabilities in the context of the extent of other charges around this litigation that these costs were reasonably incurred and therefore we disallow them.

104. We have disallowed the remaining items for which no invoices have been provided, not because an absence of an invoice is of itself indicative that there has been an absence of reasonableness, but because in these cases the payments are unidentified and unscrutinised payments to the directors. There is no evidence that claims from directors have been queried, challenged or scrutinised to any degree. Not even a charge of £350 for monitoring CCTV on New Year’s Eve whilst the city was in lockdown. We are surprised that given that it was leaseholders’ money being spent that these claims did not merit a greater degree of scrutiny and we are not persuaded that they are reasonably incurred. The impression given by these invoices from 2021 is of directors who had perhaps lost sight of the fact that they were spending other people’s money and the need for sums being incurred under the service charge to be reasonable, reasonably incurred and subject to scrutiny.

Costs

105. The Applicants made a section 20C application that the costs of this referral shall not be added to the service charge account. The relevant law on this issue is to be found in section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, subsection (1) of which provides: A tenant may make an application for an order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court or leasehold valuation tribunal ... are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service

charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the application.

and subsection (3) which gives the Tribunal power to: make such order on the application as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.

106 Whilst we note that the Applicants have not been successful in all aspects of their claim, nevertheless they have been successful in part, in particular with respect of the upgrading of the [NAME], and also with respect to their assertions about the at times cavalier way in which the Directors appear to have been charging their own time out at high hourly rates without significant scrutiny, and in respect of funding directors’ personal litigation costs and potentially duplicative costs on top of already extremely high legal fees. We note that the Applicants had raised a query about an absence of consultation in respect of the [NAME] upgrade, which whilst not ultimately of relevance to our decision, was nevertheless only conceded at the hearing when it must have been apparent long before then that the consultation documentation which the Applicants requested was lacking, particularly given that they have been represented throughout. However, similarly there are large swathes of the service charge which were queried unsuccessfully, including the significant [NAME] charges.

107. The Upper Tribunal gave guidance as to how a Tribunal should assess success or failure in Church Commissioners v Derdabi [2011] UKUT 380(LC). At paragraph [19] the judgment says:

“Where the tenant is successful in whole or in part in respect of all or some

of the matters in issue, it will usually follow that an order should be made

under 20C preventing the landlord from recovering his costs of dealing with

the matters on which the tenant has succeeded because it will follow that the

landlord's claim will have been found to have been unreasonable to that

extent, and it would be unjust if the tenant had to pay those costs via the

service charge. By parity of reasoning, the landlord should not be prevented

from recovering via the service charge his costs of dealing with the

unsuccessful parts of the tenant's claim as that would usually (but not

always) be unjust and an unwarranted infringement of his contractual

rights.”

108. It is clear, however, that the allocation between the parties where success is mixed does not require detailed consideration of bills for legal services: Paragraphs [22] and [23]:

“Where the landlord is to be prevented from recovering part only of his costs

via the service charge, it should be expressed as a percentage of the costs

recoverable. … In determining the percentage, it is not intended that the

tribunal conduct some sort of “mini taxation” exercise. Rather, a robust,

broad-brush approach should be adopted based upon the material before the

tribunal and taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances …”.

109. Given the Tribunal’s findings we are of the view that it is indeed just and equitable to make such an order – we consider that an order extinguishing 75% of the Respondent’s litigation costs relating to these proceedings before the FTT is appropriate. We are mindful that this does not represent the financial proportion of the claim which has been found to be unreasonable, but in our view in a complex

multi-faceted claim such as this, it is not the sums claimed themselves which drive the legal costs, but the number and range of issues, and the conduct of the litigation and it is this which we have attempted broadly to reflect in this decision. We are conscious that the Tenants were not legally represented and therefore it is perhaps unsurprising that they pursued a number of points which they might otherwise have been advised were less meritorious, but nevertheless they were entitled to bring the claim, had correctly identified a number of areas of concern, including conduct of Directors in connection with litigation. Had those concerns been addressed in a less combative way, it may be that may of the other issues would have fallen away. Indeed we note that the Applicants have been at least partially successful under the majority of the Issue subheadings and for this reason we conclude that an order extinguishing 75% of the Respondent’s litigation costs relating to these proceedings before the FTT is appropriate.

107 We next considered the nature of the jurisdiction conferred by paragraph 5A.

108. Paragraph 5A was added to the 2002 Act by section 131 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The note on that section published with the Act includes the following, at paragraph 359:

“Prior to the passing of this Act, the courts and tribunals had power only to restrict a landlord from recovering their legal costs through the service charge. This section strengthens the powers of the courts and tribunals so that on the application of a leaseholder they may restrict recovery of a landlord's costs through the service charge or as an administration charge.”

109. Notes on legislation published with Acts by the Government Department responsible for the legislation can assist tribunals as to the purpose of a provision, which in turn can be an aid to its construction.

110. The power referred to in the first sentence of the note is that contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 20C. As the note indicates, the purpose of paragraph 5A is to replicate, for administration charges, the existing law as it relates to service charges in section 20C. Our view is that, as a result, the considerations that apply to the making of an order under section 20C apply mutatis mutandis to making an order under paragraph 5A.

111. Paragraph 5A(2) states that “the court or tribunal may make whatever order on the application it considers to be just and equitable”, and a similar formula appears in section 20C(3) (and see Tenants of [ADDRESS] v [COMPANY] (LRX/37/2000). The orders are discretionary. They constitute an interference with the landlord’s contractual rights, and should not be made as a matter of course, so the success or failure of a party is not wholly determinative. Comparative success is, however, a significant matter in weighing up what is just and equitable in the circumstances, and it would be unusual to make an order in favour of an unsuccessful tenant (see generally [ADDRESS]; [NAME] v [NAME]/26/2005).

112. Similarly, having concluded that the Applicants have been successful in part but that there is not an overwhelming victory for either party, we make an order under Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, schedule 11, paragraph 5A limiting the Applicants’ lability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs incurred in relation to this decision to 25%.

Appeals

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Chamber must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.

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

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the person making the application is seeking

Appendices The Tribunal sets out below the items in the Scott Schedule and the extent to which they are allowed or disallowed for the reasons set out above. The narrative under the heading ‘Disputed Item’ is lifted directly from the Scott Schedule and is retained for ease of reference to enable each item to be identified. The Tribunal does not adopt or endorse any pejorative elements to this wording which does not form part of the decision itself.

Appendix A – Issue 1

Item Document no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Amount Disputed Item Tribunal decision (sum allowed) SECTION 1. - [NAME]

15 D20 27/11/2017 600.00 Invoice to design the new [NAME] that was not consulted upon. £600.00. 0 35 D32 15/11/2018 1,800.00 Invoice for the design of lighting for the new [NAME] that was not consulted upon. £1800.00 0 96 D40 01/11/2019 350.00 191108 Inv No 0050 - Attended. £350 paid to [NAME] for lighting design in the [NAME]. 0 98 D42 14/11/2019 22,725.36 191114 Inv No. [PHONE] - Pro F. £22,725.36 paid to [COMPANY]. For lighting in the [NAME]. 0 140 D79 12/08/2020 13,458.00 Attended & supplied & fitted. [NAME] was paid £13458.00 for the "green wall" part of the new [NAME]. It is made of plastic. 0 50 D34 04/03/2019 1,599.60 9 Inv-i-1903041080 windows single licence. £1599.60 paid to [COMPANY] for a new electronic notice board. 0 51

13/03/2019 75.00 Re-Installing media unit . £75 paid to [NAME] 0

[NAME] for the electronic notice board. 53 D35 16/03/2019 31.99 190318 inv-202- 8146083-9224348. £31.99 paid to [NAME] for the stainless steel notice board used by residents/visitors in the [NAME]. 31.99

14/11/2019 31,039.20 Invoice from [NAME] for [NAME] refurbishment including installation of new lighting 0

71,679.15 0.00 31.99

Appendix B – Issue 2

Ite m Document no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Amount Disputed Item Tribunal decision (sum allowed) Legal Fees for Case GO1LS190

variou s

Costs in relation to case G GO1LS19 0

176,099.6 8

132,074.7 6 Appendix C – Issue 3

Item Document no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Amount Disputed Item Tribunal Decision (sum allowed) 3. EWS1 / Cladding Report

108 D46 17/02/2020 5,280.00 Cladding Report done by a chartered survey and not Chartered Fore Engineer. £5280 5280

Appendix D – Issue 4 Item Document no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Amount Disputed Item Tribunal decision (sum allowed) 4. PRIORITY HIGH - Pre-paid Electricity Meters

112 D50 28/02/2020 1,500.00 Inv. 10913. £1500.00 paid to [COMPANY] to design a system with pre-paid electric meters on the supply of [NAME] and AML without their knowledge or permission 1500 113 D51 29/02/2020 2,874.00 Inv. 10912. £2874.00 paid to [COMPANY] to design a system with pre-paid electric meters on the supply of [NAME] and AML without their knowledge or permission. 2874 118 D54 31/03/2020 1,350.00 Inv. 10943. £1350.00 paid to [COMPANY] to design a system with pre-paid electric meters on the supply of [NAME] and AML without their knowledge or permission. 1350

121 D56 30/04/2020 8,375.41 £8375.41 for [NAME] to install 2 pre-paid meters on the electrical supply of AML and [NAME]/AML in contravention of the 1998 Transfer. Done without any notice and this also cut off the electricity several times to [NAME] & AML. 8375.41

14,099.41

14099.41

Appendix E – Issue 5 Item Document no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Amount Disputed Item Tribunal decision (sum allowed) 5. PRIORITY HIGH - Service Charge Management - Missing Invoices / Receipts

2

18/09/2016 122.40 Reimburse train ticket to NEC £122.40. 122.4 19 D23 & D24 Various 9,588.72 There are 12 payments of £799.06 (each) to [NAME] for "Water Heat Meter reading reconciliation…" 6000 31

12/09/2018 329.00 CCTV camera, £329.00 paid to [NAME] 0 32

17/09/2018 80.00 Installation of digital signage, lift. £80 paid to [NAME]. 0 38

Various 9,588.72 There are 12 payments of £799.06 (each) contained in the Expenditure Report payable to [NAME] for "Water Heat Meter reading reconciliation…" 6500 58

02/04/2019 1,211.40 Director Reimbursement Feb/Mar 20. £1211.40 paid to [NAME]. 0 100

31/12/2019 225.00 Administration costs in relation to. £225.00 paid to [NAME]. 0 101

31/12/2019 5,000.00 Professional & Administration fees. £5000.00 paid to [NAME]. 5000 104

Various 10,068.12 There are 12 payments of £839.01 (each) to [NAME] for "Water Heat Meter reading reconciliation…" 7000 107

14/02/2020 38.99 Reimbursement of Director Expenses. £38.99 paid to [NAME]. 38.99

24/03/2020 36.23 Reimbursement of Director Expenses. £36.23 paid to [NAME]. 36.23 120

28/04/2020 329.00 Purchase of 1 x CCTV Camera. £329.00 paid to [NAME]. 0

128

08/06/2022 26.29 Reimbursement of Director Expenses. £26.29 paid to [NAME]. 26.29 141

18/08/2020 100.00 CCTV- 1 Year Cloud Service. £100.00 paid to [NAME]. 0 59 D37 05/04/2019 528.00 M2092 Disbursements. £528 paid to [NAME]. 528 156

Various 10,571.52 There are 12 payments of £880.96 (each) to [NAME] for "Water Heat Meter reading reconciliation…" 7500 193

It is suspected that [NAME] is still on a long- term contract for meter reading without consultation with Leaseholders or any sort of bidding process. n/a 142 D80 18/08/2020 64.50 £64.50 paid for 2 x [NAME]. 15

47,785.49

32,644.51

Appendix F – issue 6 Item Document no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Amount Disputed Item Tribunal decision (sum allowed) 6. PRIORITY HIGH - Reasonableness Payment

153 D91 20/12/2020 1,600.00 [NAME] was paid £1600.00, including VAT for "Supply data and supporting analysis to Yorkshire water". 0 3 D1 01/09/2016 5,959.20 £5959.20 paid to [NAME] for new Paxton fobs/system. 0 4 D2 09/09/2016 1,460.59 Payment to [NAME] for Paxton system consultation and CCTV. £1460.59. 0 6 D4,D5,D6 14/12/2016 2,158.39 [NAME]. Cleaning 2 months, total £2158.39 [D3]. £1152.66 for a full month (Dec 2016). £646.00 for 1/2 a month (Nov 2016). 2158.39 7 D8 13/01/2017 1,152.66 [NAME] for 1 month. 1152.66 8 D9 20/02/2017 1,956.55 £1956.55 for a service contract for 2 lifts.

This is an example other payments exist 1956.55 9 D10, D11 20/04/2017 312.00 £312.00 for an extra camera in the meter room. 0 10 D12 08/05/2017 72.00 £72.00 for legal advice on car parking licences. 72

11 D13, D14, D15, D16 17/05/2017 3,600.00 £3600.00 to [NAME]. No detail. Inv. 6248. 3600 12 D17 11/12/2017 450.00 [NAME] for "Dog faeces" at £100.00 each (£300.00 total) and £150.00 for vomit. Grand total of £450.00 450 14 D19 16/10/2017 333.28 Inv no 6602 Various works. This includes a work order for £333.28 for an aborted visit to sort a leak in the cleaners' cupboard. 333.28 16 D21 13/12/2017 150.00 Inv no 1863 Install digital notice. £150.00. 0 20

Various 3,066.22 A category entitled "Works to Reception Area" is for the electronic notice board. They total £3066.22. 0 21

[NAME] had a service contract for 2 lifts.

23

Various 6,963.95 Company Secretary Fees

£6,963.95 6965.95 24

Various £14018.24 (2016) £4021.56 (2017) £10850.07 (2018) £20162.16 £20080.08 Unknown (2021 Planned preventative. [NAME]. This also includes, at times, general charges for OOH, but then CH is invoiced for OOH calls. allowed in full £14018.24 (2016) £4021.56 (2017) £10850.07 (2018) £20162.16 £20080.08 Unknown (2021

25

Various

Management Fee to [NAME] PM Allowed in full 27 D26 30/03/2018 300.00 Inv 14846 OOH call out- power failure. [NAME] charged £300.00 300 29 D28 16/06/2018 280.00 Inv no 9210 Clean vomit £288.00. Paid to [NAME]. 280 33 D30 08/10/2018 300.00 8 Inv No: 9301- Human faeces removal. £300.00. 300 36

Various 2,904.70 [NAME] charged £1452.35 a month for cleaning - Nov & Dec 2018 2904.7 45 D33 14/02/2019 480.00 Inv-9415 communal light shade cleaning. £480.00 paid to [NAME]. 480 102

1452.35 [NAME] charged £1452.35 a month for cleaning. 1452.35 114 D52 17/03/2020 459.36 £459.36 paid to [NAME] for "Team Viewer". 0 119 D55 15/04/2020 3,612.35 [NAME] was paid £3612.35. This included £2160.00 for "Corona Clean" charged at £50.00 an hour. 3612.35 122 D57 15/05/2020 3,252.35 [NAME] was paid £3252.35. This included £1800.00 for "Corona Clean" charged at £50.00 an hour. 3252.35

129 D67 09/06/2020 1,752.00 200610 Inv No. 10314 - IS3676141. £1752.00 paid to [NAME] to install 2 fixed CCTV cameras on the side of [NAME]. 0 130 D68 15/06/2020 3,612.35 [NAME] was paid £3612.35. This included £1800.00 for "Corona Clean" charged at £50.00 an hour. 3612.35 134 D72, D73 30/06/2020 450.00 AGM Preparation- Secure Digital Hosting for Virtual AGM. £450 paid to [NAME] includes VAT. 0 136 D75 15/07/2020 3612.35

3277.35 [NAME] was paid £3612.35. This included £1825.00 for "Corona Clean" charged at £50.00 an hour

[NAME] 15/07/2020 £3,277.35

Monthly Cleaning £1,210.29 corona Clean £1520.83 3277.35 143 D81 26/08/2020 75.00 [NAME] for "paint door to cleaners cupboard". £75.00 75

148 D86 10/10/2020 180.00 Paid to [NAME] for painting a wooden fire door. £180. 180 159 D95 02/02/2021 201.20 [NAME] charged £201.20 for a noisy water tank rom booster. 201.2 165 D101, D102 31/03/2021 900.00 [NAME] for "ICO Complaint". Inv.235893 for £900.00. 900 168 D105 22/04/2021 300.00 Inv. 10209. £300 paid to [NAME] for Vomit. 300 169 D106 24/04/2021 789.60 Inv. 10097. £789.60 paid to [NAME] (Yorkshire) to put secret CCTV cameras in both lifts. 0 172 D109 25/05/2021 380.00 AGM Preparation- Secure Digital Hosting for Virtual AGM. £380.00 paid to [NAME] includes VAT. 0 174 D111, D112 02/06/2021 300.00 Email sent from [NAME] to [NAME] approving £300.00 to be paid to "[NAME]" for a 12 hour security shift.

176 D114 24/07/2021 1,428.00 Inv. 11320. £1428.00 paid to [NAME] (Yorkshire) for enhancements to the 2 CCTV 0

cameras in the lifts. 178 D116 08/09/2021 660.00 Invoice (number unclear) paid to [NAME] for CCTV cameras in the lifts.£660.00. 0 186 D123 22/12/2021 149.99 Security Camera. £149.99 paid to John Lewis. 0 192 D192 Various 1,452.35 [NAME] charged £1452.35 a month for cleaning. 1452.35 196 D130, D131 24/03/2022 2,106.16 [NAME] placed £541.50 £492.64 in charges (each) on the accounts of 115 [NAME] and 117 [NAME]. It is for "Costs relating to Solicitors letter regarding data breach."

Total Cost £2,106.16 (£1,053.08 x 2) 2106.16

Appendix G – Issue 7

Ite m Documen t no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Amount Disputed Item Tribuna l decision (sum allowed ) - Legal Fees - Case F40YJ381

26 D25 01/02/201 8 144.00 Inv no 167 Pro fee (Candle) £144 This was paid to [NAME] for advice on Case F40YJ381. 144.00 13 D18 26/07/201 7 1,260.00 Inv no 95741 for £1260.00 paid to [COMPANY] 1,260.00 28 D27 30/04/201 8 1,218.12 Inv 90274334 Electrical advice £1218.12. Payment to [NAME] for advice on Case F40YJ381. 1,218.12 86 D39 25/09/201 9 3,000.00 191016 Inv No. 91867133 - Professional fees for advice on money claim against AML. £3000.00 paid to [NAME]. 3,000.00 106 d45 14/02/202 0 500.00 West Yorkshire Police CCTV. Payment of £500 to [NAME] "CCTV Evidence Retrieval for West Yorkshire Police against nuisance leaseholders Apt 75 [NAME]/[sic][NAME]". 0 131 D69 16/06/202 0 634.80 AML (F40YJ381) Expenses. Payment to [NAME] for £634.80. 0 163 D99 10/03/202 1 119.59 Ref. Civ 3162. £119.59 paid to [NAME] for transcripts in case F40YJ381. 119.59

6,876.51

5,741.71

Appendix H – Issue 8

Item Document no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Disputed Item Disputed Amount Tribunal decision (sum allowed) 8. - [NAME] Service Charge Contribution 7 D7 Various Various 104,966.28 104,966.28 18

Various Various 100,572.99 100,572.99 37

Various Various 120,320.94 120,320.94 103

Various Various 104,575.83 104,575.83 135 D74

01/07/2020 142,451.46 142,451.46 152 D90

15/12/2020 189,920.36 189,920.36 124 D59

25/05/2020 94,982.56 94,982.56 195

857,790.42 857,790.42

Appendix I – Issue 9

Ite m Docume nt no. (Dx) RMC Ref. Date or Start Date Dispute d Amoun t Disputed Item Tribun al decisio n (sum allowe d) 9. - SUPPLIER ISSUES 30 D29 2121319 06/07/201 8 120.00 Payment to [NAME] for £120.00 120.00 34 D31 216205 2 23/10/201 8 100.00 £50 x 2months paid to [NAME] 100.00 39

221786 2 11/01/201 9 14.50 Inv - 002891 pedestrian fob candle. Paid to [NAME] £ £14.50 14.50 40

221786 8 14/01/201 9 8.50 Inv-002910 Pedestrian access fob. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 41

221879 23/01/201 9 8.50 Inv-002913 Pedestrian access fob. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 42

221788 3 26/01/201 9 8.50 (SK) Inv-002926 Pedestrian access fob. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 43

226798 1 27/01/201 9 300.00 190517 Inv- 002945 secured. Paid to [NAME] £300 300.00 44

226798 2 27/01/201 9 114.00 190517 Inv- 002948 refixed. Paid to [NAME] £114 114.00 46

222667 4 21/02/201 9 8.50 Inv-003014 fob for apartment 83. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 47

222901 5 22/02/201 9 8.50 Inv-003021 Fob for apartment 51. 8.50

Paid to [NAME] £8.50 48

222901 6 22/02/201 9 8.50 Inv-003022 Fob for apartment 56. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 49

223966 2 28/02/201 9 804.00 Inv-003058 replace faulty. Paid to [NAME] £804.00 804.00 52

224402 0 14/03/201 9 24.00 190325 Inv- 003089 fob Admin of. Paid to [NAME] 24.00 24.00 54

224401 8 24/03/201 9 129.54 190324 Inv- 003105 Replace. Paid to [NAME] £129.54 129.54 55 D36 225182 1 28/03/201 9 20.00 190328 Inv-6 clothes moth treatment. £20.00 paid to [NAME] operated by [NAME] from 9 [NAME]. 20 56

225196 7 31/03/201 9 126.00 190408 Inv- 003141 Ground. Paid to [NAME] £126.00 126.00 57

225202 0 31/03/201 9 390.00 190408 Inv- 003142 Supply and. Paid to [NAME] £390.00 390.00 60

225209 5 08/04/201 9 575.66 190408 Painting of the roof furniture. £575.66 paid to [NAME]. 575.66 61

225714 5 08/04/201 9 14.50 90423 Inv- 003151 fob for 137. Paid to [NAME] £14.50 14.50

62

225221 0 09/04/201 9 20.00 190409 Inv-8 cloths moths activity. £20.00 paid to [NAME] operated by [NAME] from 9 [NAME]. 20.00 63

225714 4 12/04/201 9 8.50 190423 Inv- 003157 Fob for 55. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 64

225715 4 18/04/201 9 8.50 190423 Inv- 003166 fob for 112. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 65

225922 2 23/04/201 9 8.50 190429 Inv- 003175 fob for 4. Paid to [NAME] £ 8.50 8.50 66

225922 5 29/04/201 9 8.50 190429 Inv- 003192 fob for 69. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 67

226724 9 14/05/201 9 8.50 190516 Inv- 003279 Access fob for Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 68

226722 8 16/05/201 9 558.00 190516 Inv- 003287 apartment 7. Paid to [NAME] £ 558.00 558.00 69

228647 1 22/05/201 9 16.90 190605 Inv- 003311 Fob for 11. Paid to [NAME] £16.90 16.90 70

231576 1 28/05/201 9 8.50 190813 Inv - 003270 Pedestrian fob. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 71

228625 8 04/06/201 9 20.00 190604 Inv - 12 clothes moths on. £20.00 paid to 20.00

[NAME] operated by [NAME] from 9 [NAME]. 72

232784 1 06/06/201 9 8.50 190906 Inv- 003773 Fob for 59. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 73

228750 5 07/06/201 9 90.00 190607 Inv- 003374 Door to. Paid to [NAME] £90.00 90.00 74

229904 9 01/07/201 9 8.50 190704 Inv- 003459 fob for 91. Paid to [NAME] £ 8.50 8.50 75

230518 8 18/07/201 9 20.00 190708 Inv-13 clothes moth. £20.00 paid to [NAME] operated by [NAME] from 9 [NAME] 20.00 76

230518 8 18/07/201 9 90.00 190719 Inv- 003531 attend. Paid to [NAME] £ 90.00 90.00 77 D38 230524 3 19/07/201 9 78.52 190722 garden paint brushes and… £78.52 paid to [NAME]. He is not qualified or a company. Not insured. 78.52 78

231563 9 09/08/201 9 40.00 190812 Inv-14 Clothes Moths. £40.00 paid to [NAME] operated by [NAME] from 9 [NAME]. 40.00 79

232214 2 15/08/201 9 8.50 190903 Inv- 003718 Pedestrian. Paid 8.50

to [NAME] £8.50 80

239044 2 23/08/201 9 8.50 200117 Inv No. 003725 - Supplied 1x. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 81

232214 4 03/09/201 9 8.50 190903 Inv- 003761 Pedestrian. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 82

239044 3 12/09/201 9 8.50 200117 Inv No. 003799 - Supplied 1x . Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 83

239044 4 24/09/201 9 20.50 200117 Inv No. 003839 - Supplied 3x. Paid to [NAME] £20.50 20.50 84

234095 3 25/09/201 9 8.50 190926 Inv No. 003843 - Supplied Apt 160. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 85

234231 4 25/09/201 9 12.00 191016 Inv No. 003841 - IS2729144. Paid to [NAME] £12.00 12.00 87

234051 1 30/09/201 9 180.00 191003 Inv No. 003890 - Attended on. Paid to [NAME] £180.00 180.00 88

234090 1 30/09/201 9 54.00 191003 Inv No. 003884 - IS2729118. Paid to [NAME] £54.00 54.00 89

234083 2 01/10/201 9 864.00 191009 Inv No. 003915 - Attended &. Paid to [NAME] £864.00 864.00

90

239044 5 08/10/201 9 8.50 200117 Inv No. 003905 - Supplied 1x . Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 91

239044 7 10/10/201 9 8.50 200117 Inv No. 00003925 - Supplied 1x. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 92

244130 4 21/10/201 9 14.50 200117 On no.003942 - IS2825376. Paid to [NAME] £14.50 14.50 93

239044 9 22/10/201 9 20.50 200117 Inv No. 003943 - Supplied 3x. Paid to [NAME] £20.50 20.50 94

234560 1 23/10/201 9 20.00 191024 Inv No. 15 - Attended & treated. £20.00 paid to [NAME] operated by [NAME] from 9 [NAME]. 20.00 95

239045 3 31/10/201 9 8.50 200117 Inv No. 004045 - Supplied 1x. Paid to [NAME] £8.50 8.50 97 d41 235102 2 06/11/201 9 40.00 Payment to [NAME] for £40.00. Includes repair to carpet on stairs. 40.00 99 D43 238880 7 30/12/201 9 120.00 Payment to [NAME] for £120.00. This includes putting up the CH Christmas Tree. 120.00 105 d44 239137 8 21/01/202 0 270.34 2020-001. Payment to (we believe) [NAME].£270. 34 270.34

110 D48 241675 3 28/02/20 20 300.00 Payment to (we believe) [NAME].£300. 00 300.00 111 D49 241675 2 28/02/20 20 478.00 Payment to (we believe) [NAME]. £478. 478.00 116 D53 243016 9 25/03/202 0 551.98 Invoice3. Payment to (we believe) [NAME].£551. 98 551.98 123 D58 244502 5 17/05/202 0 331.98 Invoice4. Payment to (we believe) [NAME].£331. 98 331.98 132 D70 246633 3 20/06/20 20 312.25 Payment to (we believe) [NAME] £312.25 312.25 138 D77 248343 2 27/07/202 0 385.30 Invoice 6. Payment to (we believe) [NAME] £385.30. 385.30 145 D83 250693 7 08/09/20 20 20.00 [NAME] charged £20.00. 20.00 146 D84 250692 7 12/09/202 0 535.47 Invoice7. Payment to (we believe) [NAME].£535. 47. 535.47 150 D88

02/11/202 0 600.00 Inv. 10052. £600 paid to [NAME] for: 1. Dog poo on floor 18 £300.00 2. Out of Hours (OOH) bin store clean (glass & gherkins) £300.00. 600.00 155

[NAME] charged £1452.35 a month for cleaning (2020) allow 162 D98

10/03/202 1 250.00 Invoice 10. £250 paid to [NAME]. 250.00

9,233.44

9,233.44

Appendix J – Issue 10 Ite m Docume nt no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Dispute d Amount Disputed Item Tribun al decisio n (sum allowed ) 10. - VARIOUS 1

18/05/201 6 146.77 Stationery & refreshments - £146.77 146.77 5 D3 04/12/201 6 146.95 Xmas tree & baubles. £146.95. 146.95 17 D22 15/12/2017 0.00 Landlord address (and ownership) changed. These details have been wrong since 15 December 2017 and all Service Charges issued since then should be rectified. 0.00 117

27/03/202 0

The RMC and/or [NAME] blocked access to the building for the Leaseholders of 75 [NAME]. n/a 127 D65, D66 01/06/202 0

The RMC and/or [NAME] permanently block the access to the [ADDRESS] for 75 [NAME]. They admit this in Case G01LS190. There is no reason for this. n/a 166 D103 13/04/202 1 13.90 Invoice 200146506. £13.90 paid to [NAME] for a key and postage. 13.90 167 D104 19/04/202 1 5.99 Redacted invoice for a key. £5.99 paid to Amazon. 5.99 184 D121 22/11/202 1 5.90 Receipt from Ryman for £5.90. 5.90 185 D122 22/11/202 1 41.46 Various items from Amazon. This is for £41.46. 41.46 189 D126 28/12/202 1 19.73 Amazon receipt for £19.73 for green tracing dye for a drain. 19.73

191 D128 ?

Receipt from Wilko for toothpaste, kitchen roll, padlock and shampoo.

194

Payments of £50.00 an hour to anyone should be stopped unless they can be justified. n/a

Appendix K – Item 11

Ite m Docume nt no. (Dx) Date or Start Date Dispute d Amount Disputed Item Tribun al decisio n (sum allowed ) 11. PRIORITY - New Items

A1

04/01/202 1 350.00 £350.00 paid to [NAME] for "Live CCTV Monitoring". 0 A2

30/01/202 1 100.00 £100.00 paid to [NAME] for "Sundries/Reimburseme nt" 100 A3

02/02/20 21 360.00 £360.00 paid to [NAME] for "OOH lift clean" 360 A4

02/02/20 21 100.00 £100.00 paid to [NAME] for "Sundries/Reimburseme nt" 100 A5

05/02/20 21 550.00 £550.00 paid to [NAME] for "Sundries/Reimburseme nt" 550 A6

15/03/202 1 477.60 £477.60 paid to [NAME] for "[NAME]". 0 A7

15/08/202 1 100.00 £100.00 paid to [NAME] for "Google". 0 A8

25/08/20 21 3,600.00 £3600.00 paid to [NAME] for "Feb 21- [NAME] RE G01LS190 x 2 Hr" 3600 A9

27/08/202 1 89.00 £89.00 paid to [NAME] with only the description "Transaction ID: 6576933899" 0 A10

21/10/202 1 200.00 £200.00 paid to [NAME] for "Legal - Attend" 200

5926.6 4910