Tribunal Reduces Service Charges for Inadequate Maintenance

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00AJ/LSC/2025/0772 Property : 41 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] : In person Respondent : [redacted] : Mr [COUNSEL] of 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 [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of decision : 20 October 2025

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the sums payable by the applicant in respect of the service charges for the years are as follows: (a) 2020/2021: £2,112.37. (b) 2021/2022: £2,409.15. (c) 2022/2023: £2,953.12

(2) Since the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over County Court costs and fees, this matter should now be referred back to the County Court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch. The [NAME]

1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to the amount of service charges payable by him in respect of the service charge years 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023.

2. Proceedings were originally issued in the County Court Business Centre on 05 July 2024 under claim no. 548MC858. The claim was transferred to the County Court at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch, and then in turn transferred to this tribunal, by order of District Judge Bell on 17 March 2025. The hearing 3. The applicant appeared in person. The respondent was represented by Mr [COUNSEL] of Counsel.

4. The applicant gave oral evidence, and was cross examined by Mr [APPELLANT].

5. The following gave oral evidence on behalf of the respondent, and were in turn cross examined by the applicant: [redacted] Mr [APPELLANT], who is the Energy Operations Manager. (b) [NAME] [NAME], who is the Team Manager. (c) [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], who is the Neighbourhood Housing Lead.

6. We had the benefit of a well prepared hearing bundle of 645 pages. The background

3 7. The property which is the subject of this [NAME] is a is a sixth and seventh-floor duplex flat within a purpose-built block called Torridon House, which itself is part of an estate called The Oaks (“the property”). The Oaks consists of both retail properties and residential flats; the ground floor and basement area of the block are a shopping centre. Torridon House can be accessed through the communal front door on [ADDRESS] which has a fob entry.

8. To the right and behind Torridon House are separate purpose-built blocks of flats which can be accessed from Torridon House via the communal areas. Photographs of the building were provided in the hearing bundle.

9. Neither party requested an inspection and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.

10. The applicant holds a long underlease of the property dated 20 April 2020 (“the lease”) which requires the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge.

11. It was common ground that all the service charges in dispute relate to services the landlord was under an obligation to provide, and in respect of which the applicant was under an obligation to pay his share by way of the service charge. The issues 12. The Part 7 claim form in the County Court was drafted without the benefit of legal advice. The sum claimed by the Claimant was £1,471.29.

13. The reasons given for the claim are as follows:

We are filing this claim against [NAME] as they are in breach of the covenant of Lease and a breach of duty of care. They have been charging service fees for a shared ownership flat with no evidence of services being rendered and consistent dismissal of our outreach efforts, including a letter before action from our solicitor and a complaint raised with the ombudsman. We have no recourse but to file this claim for a full refund of our service fees and legal fees.

14. There then followed particulars of the claim: (a) 32 instances of hot water outages between 2020 and 2024. (b) 4 instances of packages being stolen from the mail room between 2022 and 2024.

4 (c) Two instances of the lift being out of order, in 2020 and 2024 respectively. (d) Maintenance issues: unkept grass, rubbish, urine in communal hallways between 2021 and 2024. (e) Security issue: no door lock between 14 April and 15 May 2024.

15. The claim continued: The Claimant is claiming repayment of service charge increase in the total sum of £1,471.29.

16. This might suggest that the applicant was only taking issue with year on year increases of particular charges. The applicant was unable to explain to us how he had come to the very precise figure of £1,471.29.

17. However, at a case management hearing held on 28 April 2025, it was recorded that: The parties have agreed that the essence of this claim is a challenge to Service Charges from October 2020 - October 2024. In particular, the Applicant complains of - Hot water issues 2020-2024 - Packages stolen from the mail room - Lift out of action - General maintenance issues - Door lock (security issue)

18. In fact, the service charge year 2023/2024 did not form part of the hearing.

19. The issues were subsequently extended slightly by the applicant in his particulars of claim and witness statement, but not to a degree which in any way prejudiced the respondent.

20. Unfortunately, the applicant failed to serve a Scott Schedule, in breach of the Directions. This is by far the most important document in a service charge case. Its absence makes it very hard to conduct a hearing in a focused and manageable way.

21. In the end the Tribunal managed the hearing in the following way, which it considered fair and best consistent with the overriding objective. In his

5 closing submissions the applicant was asked to go through the final service charge statements for the three relevant years, drawing our attention to those items which he wished to challenge, and in each such case telling us how much, if anything, he thought he should pay.

22. Mr [NAME] then followed with his closing submissions in response. He went through each item challenged by the applicant, answering the points being made by the applicant. He did not concede that there should be any reductions. 23 We shall set out in the following table the challenges made by the applicant to his share of the service charges, and then discuss each of them. 2020/2021

Item Amount demanded by the respondent Amount offered by the applicant 1. [NAME]. £99.61 Nil 2. Caretaker's Cleaning Supplies. £2.42 Nil 3. Mobile Caretaker. £4.83 Nil 4 [NAME]. £99.92 £50.00 5. Door Entry System Maintenance/Servicing. £17.20 Nil 6. Communal Repairs. £3.23 Nil 7. Caretaking Costs £547.92 50% = £273.96

2021/2022

Item Amount demanded by the respondent Amount offered by the applicant 1. Management fee. £228.83 £225.00 2. [NAME]. £75.01 Nil

6 3. [NAME]. £2.15 Nil 4. [NAME] £2.38 Nil 5. Caretaker's Cleaning Supplies £12.92 £5.00 6. [NAME]. £77.22 Nil 7. Door Entry System Maintenance/Servicing. £64.44 Nil 8. Communal Repairs. £65.69 Nil 9. Caretaking costs. £502.47 50% = £251.24 10. Mobile Caretaker. £4.08 Nil

2022/2023

Item Amount demanded by the respondent Amount offered by the applicant 1. Management fee. £235.69 £225.00 2. [NAME]. £62.35 Nil 3. Caretaker's Cleaning Supplies £13.33 50% = £6.67 4. [NAME]. £79.58 Nil 5. Door Entry System. £66.38 Nil 6. Communal Window Cleaning. £208.32 Nil 7. Communal Repairs. £45.14 Nil 8. Caretaking Costs. £519.34 50% = 259.67

7 9. Mobile Caretaker. £16.75 [NAME]

24. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £99.61, (b) in 2021/2022 was £75.01, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £62.35.

25. The applicant says nothing at all should be paid in respect of these charges.

26. This cannot be right in principle. It is not being suggested that no [NAME] has been carried out at all. What is being said is that the maintenance was inadequate. We were referred to photographs showing areas of what should have been lawn, but were just scrub.

27. It is true as Mr [APPELLANT] pointed out, that if the applicant wanted lush, manicured lawns the cost would be much higher. However, we agree with the applicant that in some respects the [NAME] was not up to scratch. We do not accept that weather conditions explained what could be seen in the photographs.

28. We consider, in the light of our knowledge and experience as a specialist tribunal, that the [NAME] charges should be reduced by 10% per annum. The amount recoverable (a) in 2020/2021 becomes £89.65, (b) in 2021/22 becomes £67.51, and (c) in 2022/2023 becomes £56.12. The amounts recoverable for each service charge year at the beginning of the decision reflect these adjustments. Management fee 29. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £225.00, (b) in 2021/2022 was £228.83, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £235.69.

30. The applicant objects to paying the minute increases for the latter two service charge years. There is no merit in this objection. The amounts claimed can be recovered. Caretaking Costs 31. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £547.92, (b) in 2021/2022 was £502.47, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £519.34.

8 32. The applicant offers to pay 50% on the basis that the caretaking services were inadequate. He relies principally on four instances of parcels being stolen, one photograph showing broken glass, litter, and drink cans in a stairwell, a ripped out bicycle stand and loitering individuals captured on camera.

33. On the other hand, we were shown by the respondent printed sheets giving details of the caretakers’ identity and contact numbers, which were made available to the residents. We do not consider the applicant’s evidence comes any where near showing a deficiency in the caretaking services provided. The amounts claimed can be recovered. Caretaker's Cleaning Supplies 34. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £2.42, (b) in 2021/2022 was £12.92, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £13.33.

35. The applicant made differing objections. There is no merit in them. The amounts claimed can be recovered. Mobile Caretaker 36. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £4.83, (b) in 2021/2022 was £4.08, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £16.75.

37. The applicant objected to paying these sums. There is no merit in this. The amounts claimed can be recovered. [NAME]

38. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £99.92, (b) in 2021/2022 was £77.72, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £79.58.

39. The applicant offered to pay £50.00 for 2020/2021, but nothing for the two later years. The particulars of claim refer to the lift being out of use for just four days during these periods. The amounts claimed can be recovered. Door Entry System Maintenance/Servicing 40. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £17.20, (b) in 2021/2022 was £64.44, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £66.38.

41. The applicant says nothing at all should be paid in respect of any of these charges. The only allegation in the particulars of claim, apart from the stolen packages, is there was no door lock for a month in 2024, which is outside our time period. We are not satisfied on the evidence that the maintenance and servicing of the front door fell below a reasonable standard. The amounts claimed can be recovered.

9 Communal Repairs 42. The amount claimed (a) in 2020/2021 was £3.23, (b) in 2021/2022 was £65.69, and (c) in 2022/2023 was £45.14.

43. The applicant objected to paying these sums. There is no merit in this. The amounts claimed can be recovered. [NAME]

44. The amount claimed in 2021/2022 was £2.15.

45. The applicant objected to paying this sum. There is no merit in this. The amount claimed can be recovered. [NAME]

46. The amount claimed in 2021/2022 was £2.38.

47. The applicant objected to paying this sum. There is no merit in this. The amount claimed can be recovered. Communal Window Cleaning 48. The amount claimed in 2022/2023 was £208.32 49. The applicant objected to paying this sum. There is no merit in this. There is no evidence that the windows were not cleaned or not cleaned properly. The amount claimed can be recovered. Hot Water Outages 50. The applicant’s principal complaints relate to a considerable number of hot water outages on the estate.

51. Although given every opportunity in his closing submissions to make good his failure to serve a Scott Schedule, none of his complaints made in his closing submissions, which have been set out in detail above, in fact relate to the hot water outages.

52. We cannot even be sure which charges, if any, relate to the hot water system. Perhaps, but it is only an assumption, the relevant charge would be [NAME]. The applicant’s share totals £598.22.

53. Although Mr [APPELLANT] did not take any point on this, we do not see why we

10 should allow the applicant to pursue a case he did not put forward in his closing submissions, when given every opportunity to do so, and where we cannot even be sure of the charges to which he is taking exception.

54. We are bound to say, however, that in respect of the hot water outages in themselves we believe the applicant is in the right. The respondent relied upon the evidence of Mr [RESPONDENT], who in turn relied upon printouts of outages which were not prepared by him. Whilst in no way giving misleading evidence, we feel he was rather too complacent in relying upon data generated by the respondent itself.

55. We prefer the careful logs of outages prepared by the applicant himself. Mr [APPELLANT] submitted that only a few of the outages affected the property itself. We reject that submission. We are looking at the total service charge of which the applicant pays a small share.

56. Using our knowledge and experience as an expert Tribunal, we would have made a deduction of 25% of the relevant charges in respect of the outages, had the matter been properly before us. Damp 57. In his witness statement the applicant complained of damp in the block. He produced photographs, but no expert evidence of how long the damp had been there, how it arose or how much it would cost to ameliorate it. In his closing submissions it was not suggested that any of the service charges should be reduced because of the damp. In truth, it is a claim for general damages outside the remit of the Tribunal. Conclusion 58.

For the reasons set out above, we have reduced the service charges claimed by the respondent by £23.69.

59. We would only add this. In the light of what we have said above, the respondent may wish to give the applicant a small ex gratia credit, such as £150.00, in respect of the hot water outages, but we cannot compel it to do so.

60. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over county court costs. This matter should now be returned to the at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court.

Name: [NAME]: 20 October 2025

11 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).