Service Charges Review for Leaseholders of Yorks House

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

1

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case reference : LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0313

Property :All Units in [NAME], 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Applicants : [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] charges

Tribunal: Judge Shepherd John Naylor FRICS Date and Venue of Hearing: 7th [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

2

Reviewed DECISION 1. The Applicants in this case are the [NAME] of [NAME], 5 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (“The Applicants”). The Respondent is freeholder of the premises. The Applicants were ably represented by Ms [NAME] who is one of the [NAME] who lives in Flat 19 . The Respondents were represented by Ms [COUNSEL] their solicitor.

2. The building is made up of 1 and 2 bedroom flats in a purpose built block built in 2019. The estate is made up of three blocks, namely [NAME], Leno House and [NAME]. The only block involved in the [NAME] was [NAME] a block of 24 flats of whom 15 are Applicants. Service charges for the period 2020 – 2023 inclusive were challenged. It was said at the time of the [NAME] that the value of the dispute was £187027. The parties prepared a Scott Schedule. For future reference they should include details within the schedule rather than [NAME] reference to other documents which made evaluation difficult. We were however assisted by Ms [NAME] and Ms [NAME]. In addition [RESPONDENT] gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

The relevant law

3. The law applicable in the present case was limited. It was essentially a challenge to the reasonableness of the costs. There was no challenge in relation to payability under the lease, an alleged failure to consult or limitation.

4. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985,s.19 states the following:

19.— Limitation of service charges: reasonableness.

1. Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period— (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the 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.

3

2. Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. ….

5. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to address the issues in s.19 is contained in s.27A Landlord and Tenant 1985 which states the following:

27A Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction (1) An [NAME] may be made to [the appropriate tribunal]2 for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made. (3) An [NAME] may also be made to [the appropriate tribunal]2 for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to— (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable. (4) No [NAME] under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which— (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post- dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or

4

(d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.

The issues 6. The lease terms and their [NAME] were not in issue and were in any event uncontentious. It is not intended to rehearse the terms here. The main point of challenge by the Applicants was the reasonableness of charges. Taking each broad challenge in turn.

Maintain bin cycle and frontage

7. There was general dissatisfaction with the cleaning service. The cleaning was done by GFM. The head of this [NAME] had attended site and expressed dissatisfaction with the service. The Respondents said GFM attended once a week. The Tribunal were shown photographs. It is clear that the service is not the best and we make a deduction across all relevant years of 20%.

Account management fee

8. The Applicants Respondents conceded this challenge and the sums are disallowed in full.

Gate maintenance

9. The gate in question had been out of action since 2021 when it was taken off its hinges by the rubbish collectors. One of the four gates was not therefore working throughout the period in question. Accordingly, we reduce the gate maintenance charge by 25% for each year in question.

Lighting protection 10. No decision was required.

Water - landlord

5

11. This is the cost of the communal water supply. This was not seriously challenged and is allowed in full Electricity external areas

12. The [NAME] wanted to know how the sum was calculated but no serious challenge was brought. The sum is allowed in full.

Electricity light flick testing

13. This sum is allowed in full as it was reasonable.

Gate telephone lines

14. No decision was required as no charge made.

Repairs and renewals

15. The [NAME] said that a box had been left by [NAME], the [NAME] at the front of the estate. It was an eyesore. Eventually the box was removed and they were recharged. In addition, there was a charge for a fence repair which from photographs looked like a poor repair. The [NAME] said the repairs were carried out by the [NAME]. The [NAME] had charged for a jet wash which did not take place. The Tribunal deducts a third of the invoice for the jet wash and box removal and 50% of the fence repair cost.

Gate entry system

16. No decision was required as no charge made.

Emergency service

17. The [NAME] said they had rung the number but it had not been answered. There was general dissatisfaction with the service and 50% deduction is made for the years in question.

6

Health and safety fire risk 18. The [NAME] conceded this sum.

Management fees

19. The [NAME] said the service was poor. The gardens were in a state. There had been 5 property managers in 5 years. Money had been spent when it was not needed. The example of a replacement PIB box was given which in the [NAME]’s view was overpriced. The [NAME] did not provide comparators yet the service did seem wanting accordingly we reduce the unit cost of the management fee from £262.65 to £240 for each of the years in question. The [NAME] said the PIB box was too expensive and a cheaper version could be fitted. It is for the landlord to decide which version to use and the costs of the box are allowed in full.

Accounting fees

20. This was conceded by the [NAME].

Bank charges

21. No decision required.

Postage

22. This is allowed in full.

Building insurance

23. This was conceded by the [NAME].

Insurance valuation

7

24. This sum is reasonable and is allowed in full.

Site inspections 25. This is a prudent task and the charge is reasonable and allowed in full.

Podium A/B Maintenance

26. The [NAME] said that the service was poor and this had been accepted by the head of GFM. The Respondents said the charge was for a 45 minute visit to each Podium. The Respondents conceded a 10% deduction for this item and we agree with this across the years in question.

Internal cleaning

27. The [NAME] said the service was poor and there had been a number of complaints. We accept the criticism and allow a 20% deduction over the years in question.

Window cleaning

28. No decision required as not challenged.

Refuse strategy

29. This charge met the cost of moving the bins after they had been collected at the estate. This is an essential task and the sum is allowed in full

Lift maintenance

30. This sum was conceded by the [NAME].

CCTV

8

31. Not in dispute.

Solar panel maintenance 32. No decision required as not challenged. The [NAME] originally said it was not challenged subsequently they have said they derive no benefit. This is not accepted and the cost is allowed in full.

Abseil points

33. Not in dispute.

Plant pump and substation, boiler maintenance, tank maintenance, gas safety certificate.

34. These were conceded by the [NAME] servicing

35. Not in issue.

Sprinklers, electricity, lift lines, plant room phone and routers

36. Conceded by [NAME].

Repairs and renewals 37. The [NAME] disputed three invoices from Drainscan (drain investigation), GFM (missing glazing beads) and [NAME] (bike store ). These works were reasonable save that GFM didn’t carry out any works accordingly we deduct the charge of £150.

Communal satellite, ROSPA, Fire safety, dry risers and engineering insurance

9

38. Conceded by [NAME].

s.20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

39. This was a genuine [NAME] which was cogently argued by Ms [NAME] on behalf of the [NAME]. The Applicants have been successful albeit partially. We have no hesitation in exercising our discretion under s.20C and disallowing the Respondents from recovering their costs of the proceedings from the service charge.

Judge Shepherd

18th April 2024 Review 15th May 2024

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the Tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit.

10

The [NAME] for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).