Tenant Wins Service Charge Reduction Due to Unreasonable Scaffolding Costs

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AP/LSC/2023/0445 Property : Flat 1, 635 Green Lanes. London Applicant : [redacted] : [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] Respondent : [redacted] Representative : [NAME] [COUNSEL], counsel Type of [NAME] : For the determination of the liability to pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal members : Judge Tagliavini Mrs Alison Flynn MRICS Venue : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of hearing Date of decision : 26 July 2024 30 July 2024

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines the sum of £187.50 only should be credited to the applicant’s service charge account. (2) The tribunal finds the cost of the scaffolding to be unreasonable, as on the balance of probabilities it exceeded in scope what was reasonably required for the replacement of windows, due to the roof works not being proceeded with by the applicant. (3) Therefore, the tribunal reduces the costs of the scaffolding by £1,500 of which the applicant’s 1/8 share is £187.50. (4) This matter is now remitted to the county court for any further orders and determinations on costs and interest that may be required _____________________________________________ The [NAME]

1. Following a transfer from the county court sitting at Edmonton and order of Judge Cohen dated 13 November 2023, the tribunal is required to make a determination in respect of the payability and the reasonableness of service charges paid by the applicant in the sum of £6,642.39 for replacement of windows, scaffolding together with a few sundry items and professional fees, neither of which were disputed.

2. The tribunal is not required to determine matters of costs and interest and the [NAME] will be remitted to the county court in respect of these on publication of the tribunal’s decision. The background 3. The disputed sum of £6,642.39 concerns the 1/8 contribution to major

works that were carried out as part of the respondent’s ST8B External

South Tottenham (Phase 8) 2015/16 which included 445 other

properties . The project started on site on 25/07/2016 and completed

on 26/05/2017. 4. The property at 635 Green Lanes is a building comprising 8 flats on the

first and second floors over commercial premises, of which 7 are

leasehold dwellings. The respondent is the head lessee of the building

pursuant to a lease dated 6 January 1978 made between [COMPANY] and The Mayor Alderman and Burgesses of the

London Borough of Haringey for a term of ninety nine years from 25

December 1977.

3 5. The applicant is the long lessee of pursuant to an underlease dated 20

December 1999 made between the Mayor and Burgesses of the London

Borough of Haringey and [NAME] [NAME] for a term of 77 years (now

extended) as well as having a share of the freehold. 6. The original scope of the major works were intended to include

works to the roofing, rainwater good and fascia as well as window

replacement. The roof works were not carried out as the respondent

accepted its demise did not include the roof of the building. 7. Window replacement was carried out to Flats 3, 4, 7 and 8 only, as the

remaining lessees had previously replaced their own windows (although

the lease of Flat 1 did not demise the windows to the applicant). The work

were started on 18/09/2017 and completed on 26/09/2017 and a

demand for the payment of £6,642.38 was sent to the applicant on 21

January 2022. Subsequently, total credits of £3,590.37 were made to

the applicant’s service charge account for works not carried out. 8. However, the applicant still maintains he is due a refund of £6,642.38.

The applicant asserted that the cost of the scaffolding at £11,875.79 is

excessive and was not, in any event required. Further, [NAME] who had previously replaced their own windows at

their own cost at various times. The hearing 9. At the hearing, the applicant was represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME]

and the respondent by [NAME] [COUNSEL] of counsel. The parties relied upon a

digital bundle of 156 pages. 10. During the course of the hearing, the applicant accepted that windows

had been replaced in four of the flats (not 3 as he had alleged); the

applicant had an obligation to pay for the cost of the works; the cost of

the window works was reasonable and scaffolding was reasonably

required and was used in these major works. Consequently, the only

issue that remained for the tribunal to determine, was whether the cost

of the scaffolding was reasonable. 11. During the hearing, [NAME] [NAME] demonstrated the service charge accounts

showed a credit of £3,590.37 was made to the applicant’s service charge

account on 21 August 2022 and on 26 September 2023 a BACS payment

of £2,220.97 was made to and received by the applicant to reflect the

balance on the service charge account less the outstanding estimated

service charge due of £1,414.32 thereby leaving a balance of zero. 12. The applicant asserted the cost of the scaffolding should be in the region

of £2,000 but provided no alternative quote to support this assertion.

The respondent accepted the scaffolding had been in place for the period

4

12/9/17 t0 12/10/17 and the window works carried out and completed in

the period 18/9/17 to 26/9/17. [NAME] [NAME] submitted that the erection

and dismantling of scaffolding would have had to be scheduled by the

contract, thereby necessitating it to be in situ for a longer period than

just the period of the works themselves and further complicated by the

fact the respondent withdrew its intention to carry out roof works after

a challenge by the [NAME]. The tribunal’s decisions and reasons 13. The tribunal determines the cost of the scaffolding should be reduced by

£1,500. The tribunal finds extra costs would have been incurred by r

reason of the scaffolding being erected for the carrying out of roof works

which were not proceeded with by the respondent due to the roof not

being within its demise. 14. The tribunal finds the windows of Flat 1 were not demised to the

applicant in the underlease (clause 1(e ) and that the respondent had an

obligation in the head lease ‘To keep the demised premises in good and

tenantable repair and condition and the interior and exterior properly

decorated (clause 5(4)(b) ). 15. The applicant accepted he had an obligation to contribute towards ‘The

expenses of improving maintain repairing redecorating and renewing

amending cleaning repointing painting graining varnishing whitening

or colouring the Building… (para 1 of the Third Schedule of the

underlease). 16. The tribunal finds the respondent replaced the windows of Flats 3,4,7

and 8. The tribunal finds the contractors reasonably required

scaffolding to carry out these works on the first and second (top) floors

of the building and in accordance with the Construction Design and

Management Regulations. 17. The tribunal would have been assisted had the applicant produced an

alternative quote for the scaffolding required to replace the windows at

the building, or the cost of scaffolding to carry out roof works in addition

albeit they would have had to be adjusted for time. However, the

applicant relied only on his own experience of the cost of scaffolding

at another of his properties which did very little to assist the tribunal. 18. The tribunal finds some, albeit modest adjustment to the cost of the

scaffolding should be made and therefore reduces it by £1,500 of which

the applicant’s share is £185.70. 19. The tribunal finds no other sums are due to the applicant and remits the

matter to the county court for any further orders or determinations

on cost and interest.

5

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 30 July 2024

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