Tenant Successfully Challenges Service Charges in Tribunal

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AZ/LSC/2024/0061 Property : [ADDRESS] Sw23 1DX Applicant : [redacted] : n/a Respondent : [redacted] : [NAME_5] (Counsel) Type of application : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge O’[NAME_6], Mr [NAME_7] Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 17 September 2024

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The respondent’s application to lift the debarring order dated 8th July 2024 is dismissed and the respondent remains debarred from participating in these proceedings. (2) The tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision. (3) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 so that none of the landlord’s costs of the tribunal proceedings may be passed to the lessee through any service charge. (4) The tribunal makes an order under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 so that the landlord may not recover the costs of these proceedings from the applicant as an administration charge. (5) The tribunal determines that the Respondent shall pay the Applicant £300 within 28 days of this Decision, in respect of the reimbursement of the tribunal fees paid by the Applicant. The application 1. The applicant jointly holds the leasehold interest in the premises known as [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]. The respondent owns the freehold of the building in which the flat is situated. The property is managed by [COMPANY_9], and more specifically a [NAME_10] on behalf of the Respondent. The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to the amount of service charges payable by him in respect of the service charge years 2020 to 2024. Preliminary Matters 2. The Applicant appeared in person at the hearing accompanied by his co- owner and fiancée [NAME_11]. The Respondent was initially represented by counsel [NAME_5]. At the start of the hearing we considered the Respondent’s application to lift a debarring order made by Judge Nicol on 8 July 2024. We refused the application for the reasons set out below, and proceeded to hear [NAME_2]’s application for a determination pursuant to s27A of the 1985 Act. We record that [NAME_5] left the hearing once his client’s application to lift the bar had been determined. The application to lift the debarring order.

3 3. By virtue of an order of Judge Nicol dated 8 July 2024 the Respondent has been debarred from further participating in these proceedings. At the start of the hearing, we considered the Respondent’s application to lift the debarring order dated 14 August 2024. We note that on the same date the Respondent belatedly served its response to the Applicant’s schedule of disputed charges. These should have been served by 12 June 2024. It also served an electronic bundle of over 800 pages of invoices and various other documents relating to [ADDRESS]. The essence of the application was that the debarring order had not been received by [COMPANY_9] and that the initial breach of directions was ‘caused by various matters which were out of its control including not receiving emails from the Tribunal.’ The background to the relief application is set out in paragraph 2 of the directions of Judge Vance dated 21 August 2024. Judge Vance directed that the application would be dealt with as a preliminary issue at the start of the hearing. Judge Vance did not consider that the Respondent had supplied sufficient information in its application to lift the bar, in particular it had failed to explain why the debarring order had not been received, given that the case officer sent it to 3 separate email addresses used by [NAME_8], including the address it used to communicate with the applicant and the tribunal in respect of these specific proceedings namely [EMAIL]. He directed that a further witness statement be filed by [NAME_10] by 27 August 2024 and further directed that [NAME_10] attend the hearing listed on 30 August 2024 to be cross examined as to his credibility. 4. [NAME_10] did file and serve a further statement in support of the application. It is very short. As regards the non-receipt of the order dated 8 July 2024 he simply says ‘I do not know why this was not received but having checked our system it doesn’t appear to have been received’. He states that the initial non-compliance was due to ‘an oversight and to a missed calendar reminder.’ 5. [NAME_10] did not attend the hearing as directed. [NAME_5] for the Respondent informed the tribunal that he had been instructed that [NAME_10] had been out of the country and his travel plans had been disrupted. He informed the tribunal that his instructions were that [NAME_10] had returned to the UK at 4am on the morning of the hearing and for that reason was unable to attend. He could not supply the tribunal with any further explanation, and informed us that his requests for the same had not been responded to. [NAME_5] was not in a position to put any evidence before the tribunal in support of his client’s instructions.

6. We proceeded to hear submissions in respect of the application. [NAME_5] reminded us that we should apply the 3-stage test for relief from sanction set out by the Court to Appeal in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] WLR 3926. This requires us to firstly to assess the seriousness of the relevant failure to comply; secondly to consider whether there was a good reason for that failure and thirdly to evaluate all the relevant circumstances to enable us to deal fairly and justly with the case. He

4 accepted that the breach was serious and significant. He submitted that, if we accepted [NAME_10] evidence that the order of 8 July 2024 was not received at any of the email addresses to which it was sent, then that would be good reason for non-compliance. He submitted that it would be just in all the circumstances to grant relief for two reasons; firstly the debarring order might lead to an unjust outcome for the Respondent and secondly he submitted that value of the service charges in dispute was in excess of £37,000 and so it would not be disproportionate to lift the bar. He accepted that if the bar were to be lifted this would inevitably lead to an adjournment of today’s hearing as the Applicant had been left with less than 2 weeks to consider the Respondent’s belated response to the schedule and its voluminous disclosure bundle. 7. [NAME_2] submitted that we should dismiss the application to lift the bar. He agreed that if the bar were to be lifted an adjournment would be necessary. He expressed scepticism as to the asserted non-receipt of the email attaching the order of 8 July 2024 and noted that it had long been his experience that neither [NAME_10] nor [NAME_8] respond to emails. He submitted that the reasons for the initial failure to comply with the directions were entirely due to matters within the control of the Respondent.

8. In BPP Holdings v HMRC [2017] UKSC 55 the Supreme Court confirmed that tribunals should follow the three-stage approach set out in Denton v [COMPANY_13] when considering applications for relief from the consequences of a breach of the rules or of a direction or order. It is common ground that the breach is serous and significant; the Applicant has been put in an impossible situation due to the Respondent’s default and if relief were to be granted an adjournment of this hearing will inevitably follow. We are not satisfied that the Respondent has shown good reason for the default. We do not consider that [NAME_10]’s bald assertion that the emails were not received is sufficient. We would have required [NAME_10] to have described in much greater detail the search he conducted for the emails, for example by searching by keyword or date, or by looking in junk or spam folders for each email for example. This lack of explanation is compounded by [NAME_10]’s failure to attend this hearing to answer any questions about the search he says he conducted. It seems to us that it is unlikely that 3 emails sent to email addresses actively used by the [COMPANY_8] to communicate with the tribunal could all go astray without trace. We conclude that it is more likely that the emails were received but were not acted on for whatever reason, be it oversight or human error.

9. As regards all the relevant circumstances, we consider that the respondent has not shown any good reason for its initial failure to comply with the directions of 8 March 2024. We note that the effect of the debarring order is to prevent the Respondent from participating in the proceedings but that does not mean that we simply disallow every disputed item in the Applicant’s schedule. We note that at every stage in the proceedings the Applicant has done everything he was directed to do.

5 In particular he copied in the Respondent into all of his correspondence with the tribunal. Assuming that these emails did not go astray the Respondent must have known that the applicant had applied for a debarring order on 3 July 2024 and still did nothing until 14 August, 2 weeks before the final hearing, to remedy its default. We note that [NAME_10] states that some of the delay was due to a period of religious observance but in our view a professional management company, charging management fees to leaseholders, should be able to arrange cover in the event that members of staff are unable to carry out their duties for any reason.

10. The overriding objective requires us to of deal with cases fairly and justly, and in particular to have regard to the need to deal with cases in a proportionate manner and to avoid delay. We have to consider the effect on the Applicant if the bar were to be lifted. [NAME_2] has paid most of the disputed service charges under protest and has waited some time for this hearing. In our view it would be entirely unfair to the applicant if the bar were to be lifted and we dismissed the application. The background 11. The property which is the subject of this application is a first floor flat in a 2 storey Victorian house which has been converted into two flats. [ADDRESS] is the second-to-last house in the terrace. The last house in the terrace is also a 2-storey Victorian house; [ADDRESS]. Neither the Applicant nor, as far as the tribunal is aware, the Respondent holds any interest in [ADDRESS]. 12. [NAME_2] purchased the leasehold interest in the First Floor Flat jointly with his fiancée in 2009. As stated above the freehold interest in [ADDRESS] is owned by the Respondent and is managed on the respondent’s behalf by [COMPANY_9]. The Lease 13. [NAME_2]’s flat was demised to his processor in title pursuant to a lease dated 7 October 1999 for a term of 125 years. By cause 6(3) of that lease the landlord covenanted to;

Maintain in good and substantial repair … the structure and exterior of the Building (as the same are further defined in clause 1(A) (a) in Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule hereto) together with the common areas of the building and all such sewers drains pipes wires party structures and other conveniences and parts of the building as may belong to or be used by one of the flats in the property in common with others.

Clause A(a) of the Fifth Schedule includes the following costs as costs to which the lessee is to contribute by way of a service charge;

6

“All maintenance repair amendment renewal cleaning and redecoration (including in particular decoration of the exterior of the building so often as the lessor in its reasonable discretion may determine but not more than once every three years) effected for the purpose of keeping in good and substantial repair (a) The structure and exterior of the building in in particular the roofs foundations walls and principal internal timders (sic) thereof but nevertheless excluding therefrom…

iii. The windows and other glass of and in the demised premises.

Clause 5 (f) of the lease defines the lessee’s due portion as 50% of the total costs. The issues 14. The Applicant has prepared a schedule of disputed service charges which sets out which charge he challenges and the reasons for the challenge. The relate to the service years 2020 to 2024. The service charge year runs from 1 January to 31 December. The charges for this year are estimated.

15. Many of the costs which [NAME_2] challenges relate to charges for services which require regular attendance at the property, for example cleaning the communal carpets or inspecting the communal fire alarm. In December 2023 [NAME_2] installed a Ring doorbell outside his front door, which is located in the ground floor hallway and is activated by movement. It is [NAME_2]’s evidence that the video doorbell has been activated on three occasions only since December 2023 by operatives who he assumes were sent by the Respondent. It is his evidence they appeared to be testing the fire alarm. Other than those three visits, his video doorbell has not alerted him or his co-owner to anyone entering the property to inspect it or clean it in the 9 months since it has been installed.

16. We will deal with the charges challenged in the order that they appear on the applicant’s schedule. The effect of the debarring order is that we may summarily determine any or all issues against the respondent (Rule 9(8) of the 2013 Tribunal Procedure Rules). We have accepted [NAME_2]’s submissions as to his liability in respect of each item challenged, and his estimate of what would have been a reasonable sum for each item he accepts is recoverable, unless we consider there is a good reason to depart from it. Item 1 – Insurance and broker’s fee 17. The applicant disputes the charges levied by the respondent for buildings insurance and broker’s fee for the years 2020 to 2024 inclusive being

7 £487.32, £503,04, £597.96 £1016.87 and £1019.25 respectively. [NAME_2] has obtained 2 comparable quotes for the whole building. Both quotes were provided on the basis that the building to be insured had been divided into two flats. The highest of the two was for £575 each for both flats. There was no additional broker’s fee payable in respect of either quote. [NAME_2] accepted that this sum would be reasonable and we agree that this would be a reasonable sum for building insurance for the year 2024. Having regard to this comparable quote and our experience as an expert tribunal we assess the sum claimed in 2020 was reasonable. We assess the reasonable charge for insurance for the year 2021 as £500 (£1000 for the whole building). We assess that the sums £525, £550 and £575 would have been reasonable for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024 respectively. 18. [NAME_2] does not accept that it was reasonable to incur the cost of engaging a surveyor for insurance purposes. We note that [NAME_2] was able to obtain both comparable quotations without engaging the services of a surveyor. This is not surprising given the nature of the building being a small converted house as opposed to a large multi-unit block. We accept that this charge was not reasonably incurred. Item 2 - Quarterly window cleaning 19. Paragraph A(a) iii of Fifth Schedule to the lease excludes the cleaning of demised windows from the list of services for which the landlord may levy a service charge. The photos the Applicant has supplied of the building show that there are no windows in the common parts. Further photos apparently supplied by the Respondent and included at page 98 of the bundle show window cleaning being undertaken at no [ADDRESS], the next-door property in which neither the applicant nor the respondent hold any interest. The applicant’s evidence is that window cleaning has occurred at no [ADDRESS] on about three occasions since he purchased the flat and on each occasion was done badly and was only carried out to the windows at the front of the property. Irrespective of whether or not the Respondent cleaned the windows of [ADDRESS], the cost is not recoverable under the terms of the lease. Item 3 [COMPANY_14]

20. The Applicant challenges the charges for fire risk assessments submits that it is not necessary for the freeholder to carry out annual fire risk assessments for a building of this size containing two flats. He has never been provided with a copy of the assessments despite requesting them. He accepts that it would be reasonable to carry out a fire risk assessment every 5 years. We consider that the charge of £126 that was levied in 2020 for a fire risk assessment was reasonable. We do not consider that it was necessary to repeat this exercise every year in the absence of any obvious reason to suppose it was no longer valid.

8 21. [NAME_2] challenges the charges levied for fire door inspections in 2020 and 2021. [NAME_2]’s evidence is that there are no fire doors either in the common parts or within the flats themselves. Again he has never been provided with a copy of this assessment despite asking to see the same. Consequently it was not reasonable for the Respondent to incur the cost of inspecting non-existent fire doors.

22. [NAME_2] challenges charges levied for ‘[COMPANY_14]’ for each year in dispute. His evidence is that he has asked what these charges relate to and what services were provided. He has never had a response. As stated above we agree that it would be reasonable to carry out a fire risk assessment every 5 years unless there was reason to believe that the fire risk had changed. We agree that it is unclear what this additional service might be; there is no firefighting equipment in the common hallway which might explain it. In the absence of an explanation from the Respondent we agree that these costs were not reasonably incurred.

23. [NAME_2] challenges charges levied from 2021 to 2024 for monthly testing of emergency lighting and smoke detectors. [NAME_2] submits that he can test the alarms and submits that monthly testing is too frequent for a building of this size. In our experience it would be usual to test fire alarms and emergency lighting in a small building on a monthly basis. In larger buildings they are usually tested once per week. The sums claimed for each of the relevant years, £184.84, £285.12, £264.00 and £250 do not appear to be excessive for monthly test of such equipment. However we are not satisfied that this service has in fact been provided on a regular basis. We have been referred by the applicant to a log sheet which he says has been recently provided by the Respondent. It appears at page 102 of the bundle and indicates that monthly fire alarm testing was carried out between December 2021 and August 2022. The remainder of the log is blank. We bear in mind the evidence from the Applicant’s video doorbell which suggests that this service continued to be provided, albeit irregularly. We consider that a charge of £100 would be reasonable for each of the years 2023 and 2024 We consider the charges for the other years are reasonable and do appear to be at least partially substantiated by the log sheet.

24. [NAME_2] challenges the cost of a sign erected in 2023 in the communal hallway. The respondent included a charge of £72 for each flat for the sign. A photo of the sign is included in the bundle at page 101 and, apart from the inclusion of the address seems to be entirely generic. A charge of £144 seems excessive and we would consider that a charge of £20, or £10 per flat, would have been reasonable.

25. [NAME_2] challenges a charge for replacing a smoke detector in 2021. His evidence is that he did not think that the smoke detector was ever replaced in 2021. Again he says that he has queried this charge but has never had a substantive response. In the absence of any evidence from the

9 Respondent as to whether it was replaced and why, we do not consider that the charge was reasonable.

26. [NAME_2] challenges the cost of ‘fire alarm works’ in 2022. The Applicant is not aware of any such works being carried out in 2022 but accepts that he agreed to pay this sum ‘in good faith’ when it was demanded. It appears therefore that the charge was agreed by the applicant, albeit he has subsequently had doubts as to whether the works were in fact carried out. As the charge was agreed and paid by the applicant in 2022 the tribunal has no jurisdiction in respect of it by virtue of s27A(4) of the 1985 Act. Item 4 - Accountancy fees 2020 to 2024 27. The summary of costs supplied each year by the Respondent is rudimentary. Each summary is accompanied by a statement ‘Certified by [COMPANY_9].’ The accounts are not formally certified. We are not satisfied that this cost has in fact been incurred as a separate cost by the Respondent’s managing agent and we do not consider that it is reasonable to charge it in addition to the management fees.

Item 5 -Bin cleaning 2020 to 2023 28. [NAME_2]’s evidence is that the bins at [ADDRESS] never been cleaned by the Respondent. He has been provided with an invoice by the Respondent in support of this charge which indicated it covered the cost of cleaning 8 bins, however [ADDRESS] has only 3 wheelie bins serving both flats. The bins are provided and owned by the local authority. We are not satisfied that this service has in fact been provided to [ADDRESS]. In addition it does not fall under any of the services which the landlord may charge pursuant to paragraph A of the Fifth Schedule. Item 6 - Surveyor for Maintenance Schedule 2020 29. The Applicant does not accept that any such survey took place. No access was arranged with either him or the leaseholder of the flat downstairs to enable a survey to take place so at best the survey could only have been undertaken to the front exterior of the property. The maintenance schedule was never disclosed to him. We are not satisfied that the respondent in fact incurred the cost of instructing a surveyor to prepare a maintenance schedule and consequently the charge is not recoverable. Item 7 - Electrical inspections and works.

30. The Applicant was charged various sums for items which appear to relate to electrical inspections; £300 in 2021, £149.40 in 2022, £99 in 2023 and a further £51 in 2023. The applicant states that he has never been told what these charges related to despite numerous requests. He concedes

10 that it would be reasonable for the freeholder to inspect the electrical installations in the common parts every 3-5 years. We note that the freeholder is responsible for the maintenance of the electrical system in the common parts under the terms of the lease. In our view it was reasonable to inspect the electrical installations in the common parts every year but in our view a reasonable cost of the same would have been £200, or £100 per flat.

31. The Applicant was charged £27 for a common parts inventory in 2022. He has never been supplied with a copy of this inventory and it is his case that when he was given a copy of the invoice it indicated it was split between 3 flats and not 2. We are not satisfied that any inventory was undertaken in respect of [ADDRESS] and consequently the cost is not recoverable from the Applicant. The Applicant also challenged the charge described as ‘Common Parts Electricity’. He is not sure what this relates to. He was charged £70.11 in 2023 and £125 in 2024. We note that these charges appeared in the service charge accounts after the installation of an independent electrical supply to the common parts. It seems to us that this is the cost was probably for the cost of supplying electricity to the common parts. The applicant accepted in the hearing that if these charges were for the annual cost of the electrical supply then it was reasonably incurred and reasonable amount. Item 8 External Path Marking 32. In 2021 the Applicant was charged £250 for external path marking. The Applicant’s evidence is that this charge related to the painting of a single white line at the front of the building denoting where the three bins serving the property were to be kept. The applicant’s evidence is that neither he nor the other leaseholder requested this. We do not consider that this cost was reasonably incurred and hold that it was not payable by the respondent. Item 9 Roof works 33. The applicant was charged £618 for emergency roof repairs, £1058 for roof repointing and £276 for replacing roof tiles. In 2023 he was charged £3,968 for further roof works which were described as s.20 roof works. The applicant’s evidence is that these works arose due to storm damage which occurred in early 2022. He accepts that in 2023 a s.20 notice was served in respect of the roof works but it is not included in the bundle. It is his case that much of the items in the 2023 s.20 notice replicated work that had already been charged for in 2022. It is also his case that the operatives engaged by the respondent carried out works to the roofs of both [ADDRESS] and [ADDRESS]. Included in the bundle at page 110 are a series of photos supplied by the respondent which appear to show a recently repaired roof. However it is clear on close inspection that the roof is not the roof of [ADDRESS] but the roof of the next- door property; [ADDRESS]. The applicant accepts that some

11 minor repairs were carried out to the roof of his building and he has supplied the tribunal of photographs of the roof of [ADDRESS] before it was repaired. The photos show some displaced tiles to the rear addition. He has obtained an alternative quote in the sum of £1,200 plus VAT to have that damage repaired and submits that the sum of £720 plus VAT per flat would have been reasonable. We accept this submission. Item 10- [NAME_15] 2022 34. The Applicant was charged £237.50 for [NAME_15] in 2022. His evidence is that the works consisted of a trim to a single bush which took about 30 minutes. He submits that a cost of £75 per flat would have been reasonable and we accept this submission. Item 11 [NAME_16]

35. The applicant was charged £150 in 2021, £150 in 2022, £330 in 2023 and £175 in 2024 for [NAME_16]. He accepts that a charge of £100 every three years would be reasonable. In our view it is reasonable to clear the gutters annually. We accept the submission that the annual cost of £100 per flat is reasonable and so we would assess the reasonable charge for this item would be £100 for each of the years in dispute. Item 12- Electrical Works 36. The Applicant has been charged a total of £13,410.72 for electrical works between 2022 and 2023. This cost relates to the cost of installing an independent electricity supply to the common parts, and the cost of connecting the same to the power network. Prior to the works the common parts shared an electrical supply with the ground floor flat. The Respondent served a s.20 notice in respect of these works in 2022. The Respondent also supplied the applicant with a full specification of the proposed works which is included in the bundle at page 121. Using this specification and photographs of the old electrical installations the Applicant has obtained 2 alternative quotations for the same work; one from [COMPANY_17] and one from the [COMPANY_18]. The cost estimate from [COMPANY_17] to carry out the works which it considered necessary to upgrade the electrical supply to the common part was £3290. This does not include the cost of connecting the new installations to the [NAME_19]. [NAME_17]’s engineer estimated that this would cost about £6500. [NAME_18]’s estimate for the cost of the works set out in the Respondent’s specification was £4130.32. Again it does not include the cost of connecting to the power network. The applicant accepts that the higher of these estimates represents a reasonable sum for the works as it includes all the work set out in the Respondent’s specification. He notes that the cost of connecting the new installations to the power network in the estimate supplied by the Respondent was £2340 and he submits that this would be a reasonable charge for the building. However in light of the estimate supplied by [NAME_17] as to the

12 likely charge payable to [NAME_19] for the installing the apparatus needed to connect the common parts to the network, we consider that £7057 is likely to represent the actual sum UKPN charged the respondent to connect the new supply. [NAME_2] accepts that the trench dug outside his property to facilitate the connection works needed to be backfilled and made good once the works were complete. He accepts that a charge of £450 per flat would have been reasonable in line with the estimate which is included in the bundle at page 133. We agree. We assess the reasonable total cost of the electrical works carried out in 2022 and 2023 would have been £12,087. Of this the applicant’s share £6,043. Items 13, 14 and 15 - Drone survey, Joinery Repair and Carpet Cleaning 37. The Applicant does not accept that any of these services were provided. In particular he states that has never noted any joinery repair in the common parts and the carpet has never been cleaned by the Respondent as far as he is aware. He has seen no evidence of any carpet cleaning being carried out in the 9 months that his Ring doorbell has been in situ. We are not satisfied that these services have been provided by the respondent and consequently the Applicant is not liable to pay for them. Item 16 Decorating works 38. The Applicant was charged £675 for wall repairs and a further £4779 for external redecoration works in 2023. He accepts that some exterior decorating works were undertaken by the Respondent in 2023. He accepts that he received a s.20 notice in respect the proposed works and s.20 works specification which is included in the bundle at page 144. However his evidence is that the works undertaken fell far short of the specification. His evidence is that the works undertaken were completed in 6 hours, split over 2 days. He also accepts that some additional decorating and repair work was carried out to the walls in communal hallway. He accepts that the total sum of £2931.60 for these works, of which £1465 would have been his reasonable share. We see no reason to disagree. Item 17- Drain Services 39. [NAME_2] was charged £125 for drain services in 2024. He is not aware of any issue with regard to the drains which would justify this estimated charge. We see no reason to disagree and we disallow it. Item 18 – Legal Fees 40. These fees are not service charges. Furthermore they were not challenged in the initial application. Therefore we have declined to consider them.

13 Item 19 – Management Fees 41. [NAME_2] accepts that the Respondent was entitled to recover management fees under the terms of the but submits that the sums sought, ranging from £289 in 2020 to £303 in 2024, were too high. He also submits that the standard of service he has had from [NAME_8] is very poor. We agree that the standard of service which the leaseholders have been afforded is poor. However in our view the management charges in this case are at the lower end of the range that we would expect to see for a property of this nature in this location and we consider that they are reasonable in amount. Application under s.20C and refund of fees 42. At the end of the hearing, the Applicant made an application for a refund of the fees that he had paid in respect of the application and the hearing. Taking into account the determinations above, the tribunal orders the Respondent to refund any fees paid by the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this decision.

43. In the application form, the Applicant applied for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act and for an order under Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act. The Applicant has largely succeeded in his application. We also bear in mind the poor conduct of the respondent which lead to the debarring order and our decision not to lift it. Taking into account the determinations above, the tribunal determines that it is just and equitable in the circumstances for an order to be made under section 20C of the 1985 Act and Paragraph 5A of the 2002 so that the Respondent may not pass any of its costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the tribunal through the service charge or as an administration charge.

Name: [NAME_6] Date: 17 September 2024

Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First- tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

14 The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).