Tribunal Rules on Reasonable Service Charges for Ceira Court Tenants

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/00KA/LSC/2025/0636 and 0699 Property : [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant: [redacted] 10, 11, 12; and of [NAME] 8. Representative :

[NAME] [COUNSEL] of [COMPANY] [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] and Mrs [COUNSEL]

Respondents :

[redacted] :

[COMPANY] of [NAME] : [NAME] for a determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges Tribunal :

Judge A. [NAME] Date of hearing : 13 January 2026 Date of decision : 22 January 2026

DECISION AND REASONS

2 Decisions of the Tribunal (1) The Tribunal determines that, for the purposes of section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the service charges payable for the named flats in [NAME] in respect of the 2023, 2024 and 2025 service charge years are as set out in this decision and its Annex. (2) The [NAME] for an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is granted. (3) The [NAME] for an order under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 is granted. (4) The Tribunal makes an order requiring the Respondent to reimburse the Applicants in respect of the Tribunal fees paid by them which are £114 for the [NAME] and to £341 to the [NAME] of flats 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12.

REASONS The Applications 1. By an [NAME] dated 14 March 2025 (“the First [NAME]”), and a further [NAME] dated 29 September 2025 (“the [NAME]”), the Applicants (being those involved in both applications) seek a determination under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the Act”) as to the liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges for [NAME] known as [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE], (“[NAME]”).

2. The First [NAME] is made on behalf of the [NAME] of flats 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12. The details of the [NAME] of each of these flats are set out within the [NAME] form. The [NAME] relates to the service charge years 2023, 2024 and 2025.

3. The [NAME] is made on behalf of the [NAME]. The details of the [NAME] of this [NAME] are set out within the [NAME] form. The [NAME] relates to the service charge years 2024 and 2025.

4. The Applicants also seek an order under section 20C of the Act/paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”) preventing or limiting the Respondent’s ability to seek the costs of these proceedings via a service charge and for their [NAME] fees to be reimbursed by the Respondent.

5. On 26 August 2025, the Tribunal gave [NAME] in the First [NAME] following a case management hearing which had been listed on 14 August 2025 but moved to accommodate the Respondent’s dates to

3 avoid. In the event, the Respondent did not attend the case management hearing. The critical dates in the [NAME] were for the Respondent to send to the Applicants certain documents relating to ownership of [NAME] and service charge information by 17 September 2025 and for the Applicants to send to the Respondent a schedule, summary of their responses, copy quotations and any witness statements by 15 October 2025. The Respondent was to annotate the schedule with its comments and serve this along with any supporting documents or statements by 12 November 2025. The schedule to be annotated is the Scott Schedule referred to herein. The Applicants could then, if they wished, send a brief supplemental reply by 26 November 2025. The Applicants were to prepare a bundle for use at the hearing by 3 December 2025.

6. The applicants in the First [NAME] made an [NAME] for case management orders on 10 October 2025 asserting non-compliance by the Respondent. In consequence of this [NAME], the [NAME] were amended on 13 October 2025 and there was adjustment to this timetable, which it is not necessary to repeat herein.

7. The First [NAME] and the [NAME] were intended to be heard together on 13 January 2026. The First [NAME] is under case reference CAM/00KA/LSC/2025/0636. The [NAME] is under case reference CAM/00KA/LSC/2025/0699. It is not clear whether the [NAME] of flats 1, 7 and 9 are also pursuing applications relating to service charges. The Tribunal panel were provided with advance papers for the First [NAME] only. This was because the Tribunal case officer had not received bundles or any indication that those involved in case reference CAM/00KA/LSC/2025/0699 intended to attend the hearing. The Hearing 8. The hearing took place remotely using the CVP platform. 9. [NAME] [NAME] attended on behalf of the applicants for the First [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] and Mrs [NAME] attended in respect of the [NAME] (relating to their own [NAME], number 8, only).

10. There was no attendance for the Respondent. The Tribunal case officer attempted to contact the Respondent by telephone on its main office number. The case officer was told that [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] (who had conduct of the matter and who had been involved in all correspondence with the Tribunal on the Respondent’s behalf) was not present and his whereabouts were not known. We waited an additional few minutes before commencing the hearing.

11. The Tribunal had not been expecting the [NAME] to proceed and heard submissions from the Applicants as to how the hearing should progress. In respect of the Respondent’s non-attendance, [NAME] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] [RESPONDENT]/Mrs [RESPONDENT] wished to proceed and we were reminded that the Respondent had not attended the case management hearing despite the date being moved to accommodate its availability. In respect of the

4 hearing of the [NAME], [NAME] [NAME]/Mrs [NAME] had filed an [NAME] and supporting documents but not submitted anything further nor any bundle, as they had submitted all that they wished to rely upon. [NAME] [NAME] understandably wished to see a copy of the documents filed by [NAME] before commenting upon whether a fair hearing could proceed.

12. The Tribunal therefore took a short adjournment, during which time the [NAME] (comprising the [NAME] notice and some additional documents in a bundle totalling 90 pages) was emailed to the Tribunal and to [NAME] [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME] provided an electronic copy of the Scott Schedule and official copies for [NAME] to the Tribunal and these were passed to [NAME].

13. The documents before the Tribunal comprised a bundle from [NAME] in relation to the First [NAME] which ran to 805 pages. These included copies of the Scott Schedule annotated only by him for his clients together with service charge budgets, accounts and demands and supporting invoices covering periods from 2020 to 2025. The Tribunal also had the above-mentioned [NAME] notice and bundle relating to [NAME] 8, which ran to 90 pages, and the official copies for [NAME].

14. There were no witness statements produced by the parties; however the Tribunal took the view that it was not necessary to hear witness evidence given the issues and a fair hearing could proceed on the basis of submissions only.

15. In relation to the issue of the Respondent’s non-attendance, the Tribunal was satisfied that due notice of the hearing was given to it. The Tribunal noted that the [NAME] required the parties to provide dates to avoid by 17 September 2025. The Respondent had emailed the Tribunal on that date at 16.00pm providing links to evidence as required by the [NAME] (but no statement of case) and included some dates to avoid, including 1-16 January 2026. It was not clear to the Tribunal whether those dates to avoid were overlooked by the case officer, or whether they were considered and Tribunal listing priorities meant that they could not be accommodated. In any event, the Tribunal noted that the case officer had written to the parties on 25 September 2025 confirming the date of hearing. This date had also been confirmed in a letter to the Respondent on 11 December 2025. The Respondent had emailed the Tribunal on 7 January 2026 relating to service of the bundle, and evidence of prior service was provided on 8 January 2026. In the circumstances, the Tribunal took the view that it was appropriate to continue hearing the case. This was in the interests of justice and the overriding objective under Rule 3 of the Procedural Rules e.g., dealing with the case efficiently and proportionately. The Respondent had over three months to state any objection to the listing date, whether or not there had been a Tribunal error in listing on a date to avoid and leaving aside whether it had a right rather than a mere expectation to have a listing around its availability in any event. The Respondent had been in communication with the Tribunal and chosen not to attend. The Tribunal noted that the

5 hearing on 26 August 2025 had been moved to accommodate the Respondent’s availability and they had still not attended. The Tribunal had taken steps to contact the Respondent on the morning of the hearing but to no avail; office staff did not indicate any issues with availability at that time, only that the whereabouts of [NAME] [NAME] were not known.

16. In relation to the issue of the whether to hear the [NAME], [NAME] [NAME] confirmed, having had a fair opportunity to read the documents provided during the adjournment, that he did not object to it being heard alongside the First [NAME]. [NAME] [NAME]/Mrs [NAME] confirmed that they did not wish to rely on any further evidence, other than what was filed with their own [NAME] and those documents relied upon by [NAME] [NAME]. The Applicants were keen to continue with the hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied, having had sight of a letter to the Respondent dated 11 December 2025, that the case officer had made clear to the Respondent that both cases would be heard together. As noted above, despite this knowledge, the Respondent had chosen not to attend or file documents in reply. The Tribunal accepted that [NAME] [NAME]/Mrs [NAME] had genuinely believed that they did not need to file anything further given their reliance only upon what they had filed with their [NAME]. They did not seek to rely on any additional documents at the hearing. There had been some confusion with the case officer taking their silence to mean that they would not attend the hearing. In view of this, and the considerable overlap of issues and documents, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to hear both applications. This was in accordance with the overriding objective of avoiding delay and dealing with cases proportionately. We did not consider that the Respondent would be prejudiced by doing so. The Tribunal had also had sufficient opportunity to read the documents relating to the [NAME] and considered there to be sufficient time to deal with the issues before it.

17. The majority of the hearing was therefore spent working through the Scott Schedule. The Scott Schedule covered substantive items for two service charge years, 2023 and 2024. In addition, [NAME] [NAME]/Mrs [NAME] had set out item by item challenges with their [NAME] predominantly for the 2024 service charge year. The Respondent had failed to comply with the [NAME] by filing counter arguments in the Scott Schedule or by way of a statement of case. The Tribunal therefore went through each item of challenge in turn and scrutinised the submissions, requiring the Applicants to point to documentary evidence in the bundles where possible.

18. No inspection of [NAME] was requested, and the Tribunal did not consider that one was necessary to determine the issues.

19. The Tribunal reconvened without the parties on 14 January 2026 to consider the submissions made and extensive evidence which we were referred to.

6 The Issues 20. The primary issues to be determined in this case were: (i) A determination under section 27A of the Act in respect of the service charges payable for the years 2023, 2024 and 2025, in particular whether the relevant charges are payable under the lease(s) and are reasonable; and (ii) Whether an order under section 20C of the Act and/or paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act should be made i.e., an order to reduce or extinguish the tenant’s liability to pay an administration charge in respect of litigation costs; and (iii) Whether the fees paid by the Applicants should be reimbursed by the Respondent.

21. A preliminary matter for consideration was the period during which the Respondent owned [NAME] and whether a right to manage had been granted such that rights to recover service charges were limited. This had been considered during the case management hearing but was an issue which the Tribunal was required to determine because there was some lack of clarity at that time. [NAME] and Lease 22. The Respondent is the registered freehold proprietor of [NAME] and [NAME] were managing [NAME]. The period of ownership is addressed below. 23. [NAME] comprises a block of 12 residential leasehold flats, of which each pays the service charge in accordance with a percentage under their lease, which was 8.5%.

24. We were provided with a copy of the lease for [NAME] 6 which is dated 14 September 2015. This lease is between [RESPONDENT] and [APPELLANT] as the Landlord and [APPELLANT] as the Tenant and provides for a term of 125 years from 1 January 2015.

25. It was common ground that the leases for the flats in [NAME] contained similar provisions to each other.

26. There were no material disputes as to the lease provisions so it is not necessary to set those out in full here. Clause 2.2 deals with the liability of each leaseholder to pay a Service Charge and Insurance Rent in accordance with Schedule 2. Clause 4.4 requires the Landlord to perform the obligation contained in Schedule 1.

27. Schedule 1 includes an obligation on the Landlord to: “1. To maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and condition and renew or to replace when required the Main Structure the Common

7 Parts and any Pipes used in common by the Tenant and other tenants of the Building and which are not expressly made the responsibility of the Tenant or any other tenant in the Building and the boundary walls and fences not included in the lease of any [NAME] in the Building.” … “5. To employ at the Landlord’s discretion a firm of managing [NAME] to manage the Building and discharge all proper fees charges and expenses payable to such [NAME] or such other persons who may be managing the Building including the cost of computing and collecting the Service Charge.” … “6. To do or cause to be done all works installations acts matters and things as in the absolute discretion of the Landlord may be considered necessary or desirable for the proper maintenance safety amenity and administration of the Building.” … “8. To set aside such sums as the Landlord reasonably requires to meet such future costs as the Landlord reasonably expects to incur in replacing maintaining and renewing those items that the Landlord has covenanted to replace maintain or renew.” 28. Schedule 2 provides a mechanism for the Tenant to pay a sum on account of their Service Charge Percentage of the Annual Expenditure, based on a reasonable estimate, and for reconciliation of any under or over payment after the year end.

29. The defined terms are set out at clause 1 of the leases, including the Services as being those in Schedule 1, the Service Charge as being the Service Charge Percentage of the Annual Expenditure and the latter including costs expenses and outgoings whatever reasonably and properly incurred by the Landlord including VAT thereon. The Financial Year is 1 January to 31 December. As above, the Service Charge Percentage is 8.5% for each [NAME].

30. The above summarises the central features of the leases and the Scott Schedule helpfully sets out the sums in issue which had given rise to these proceedings. A further analysis is set out below with our findings and reasons. The Law 31. The law applicable in the present case is as follows:

32. Section 19 of the Act states: 19.— Limitation of service charges: reasonableness.

8 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.

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. ….

33. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to address the issues in section 19 is contained in section 27A of the Act, which states the following: 27A Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction (1) An [NAME] 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. (2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made.

(3) An [NAME] may also be made to [the appropriate tribunal] 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

9 (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 (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.

34. In construing the meaning of words used in the leases, the Tribunal is concerned to identify: “What a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood them to be using the language in the contract to mean”. In [NAME] this determination the Tribunal must focus: “on the meaning of the relevant words…in their documentary, factual and commercial context.” (Lord [NAME] in the case of Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36 at [15]). The parties’ submissions and the Tribunal’s determination 35. The Tribunal is required to determine the question of what a fair sum of service charge should be for each [NAME] in the First [NAME] for each of the 2023, 2024 and 2025 service charge years and for [NAME] 8 in respect of the [NAME] for the 2024 and 2025 service charge years. [NAME] [NAME]/Mrs [NAME] were reminded at the hearing that any determination in respect of the 2023 service charge year would not be binding upon them or the Respondent in respect of [NAME] 8, albeit it may well assist any future discussion or be evidence they would wish to adduce in any future tribunal or court proceedings.

36. The Applicants’ respective positions were set out in the Scott Schedule and elaborated upon in the [NAME] and in the statement of case for the First [NAME] as well as in oral submissions.

37. The first preliminary point we had to consider was the ownership of [NAME], in respect of which we had the benefit of the official copies showing an extract from the Land Registry. Pursuant to section 58 of the Land Registration Act 2002 we were entitled to take the entries on the register as conclusive. These show that the Respondent was registered as the proprietor on 18 June 2024 following a transfer dated 8 November 2023. We therefore find that the ownership of the Respondent for the purposes of the leases took effect from 8 November 2023.

10 38. The second preliminary point was when the Respondent’s right to manage [NAME] ceased. Whilst it continues to own the freehold interest in [NAME], we were shown a copy of the decision of Regional Judge Wayte sitting in the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) on 8 July 2025 under case reference CAM/00KA/LRM/2024/0602 . This decision determined the [NAME] relating to [ADDRESS] RTM Company Limited under section 84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2022. This decision was that the aforementioned RTM company acquired the right to manage as at 22 September 2024. We were not aware of, nor directed to, any variation or revocation of that decision nor any pending appeal. On this basis, we considered that the right to manage for the Respondent ceased on 22 September 2024.

39. In view of our findings on the preliminary points, the Respondent is only entitled to levy service charges under the leases between 8 November 2023 and 22 September 2024. We find that there is no legal obligation for the Respondent to undertake services under Schedule 1 of the leases nor any right to levy a Service Charge under Schedule 2 outside of these dates. This means that any claims for service charges outside of these dates are not payable under the leases and any which cover a period including but not limited to those dates would require pro-rating.

40. The Annex attached sets out our decision on the sums it would be reasonable to budget for in each of the 2023, 2024 and 2025 service charge years in the context of the above matters and we find accordingly. In summary, the budgets shall be: (a) 2023: this relates to the First [NAME] only – total £11,007.30. (b) 2024: this relates to the First [NAME] and the [NAME] – total £18,421.57. (c) 2025: this relates to the First [NAME] and the [NAME] and no service charges are payable given our findings on the preliminary issues – total £0.

41. In relation to the applications under section 20C of the Act and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act, the Applicants invited us to restrict the ability of the Respondent to recover costs related to these proceedings via a service charge. The Respondent had provided no indication that it intended to levy such costs nor opposed the [NAME]. We were mindful that the ability to recover costs via a service charge was limited in a practical sense given the decision permitting a right to manage from 22 September 2024. However, we were informed by [NAME] [NAME]/Mrs [NAME] that they were still receiving service demands for future periods despite some 15 months having elapsed. We therefore considered it appropriate to make an order for the avoidance of any doubt. In our view, there are considerable reductions necessary to the service charges claimed and the Applicants had brought the challenges appropriately. We find that it is just and equitable to make an order under section 20C of the Act and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act in respect of any costs incurred in these proceedings.

11 42. The Applicants sought reimbursement of the Tribunal fees paid. We were told that this was two [NAME] fees of £114 and a hearing fee of £227. We considered that it was reasonable for the Applicants to bring these proceedings and noted the Respondent’s failure to attend the case management hearing and the final hearing, its failure to file a statement of case and its failure to complete the Scott Schedule. The completion of the Scott Schedule and provision of some missing documentation from the bundles, as well as its attendance and cooperation generally, would have greatly assisted us and save time. We therefore consider it just to order that the Respondent should reimburse the fees incurred in the total sum of £341 for the First [NAME] and £114 for the [NAME]. Name: Judge A. [NAME]: 22 January 2026

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, [NAME] 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).

1 ANNEX

Case Reference: CAM/00KA/LSC/2025/0636/0699 Property: [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

ITEM SUM ALLOWED

REASONS 1 January 2023 – 31 December 2023 Insurance premium + broker fee June 2023/2024 £314.41 £2,125.19 is claimed for insurance costs covering an insurance period 1 June 2023 to 31 May 2024. We were not provided with an invoice, only the policy certificate. The Applicants submitted that they did not accept the accountants certification. However, there was no basis to believe that it was fraudulent and the policy certificate evidenced that cover was taken out.

We consider the premium to be reasonable having regard to the size of [NAME] and it is consistent with [NAME] years premiums.

The costs claimed should be apportioned so sums pre-dating the Respondent’s ownership should be disallowed. 08.11.23-31.12.23 (54 days).

We allow £314.41. Common parts Electricity £0.00 This was not disputed as no sum was demanded. Common parts Cleaning £162.00 £493.49 is claimed for cleaning of the common parts.

The invoice on bundle page 119 is dated 30.06.23 so predates ownership. The sum of £331.49 is disallowed.

We consider November and December cleaning to be reasonably incurred. We consider the cleaning cost per visit to be reasonable, being £45 plus VAT per visit with two visits per month for common parts serving 12 units.

We allow £162. Maintenance of [ADDRESS] £312.00 This was not disputed. Window Cleaning £264.00 £264 is claimed for window cleaning.

2 We consider that reference to ‘condition’ in Schedule 1 of the leases includes cleanliness. The Applicants accepted this at the hearing. External window cleaning is therefore a recoverable cost under the service charge. Internal window cleaning falls within each demise under clauses 3.3 and 3.5 of the leases.

The charges are £110 plus VAT per visit. We consider two visits at this price reasonable for the size of building.

We allow £264. Fire Health & Safety testing, Services and Repairs £0.00 This was not disputed as no sum was demanded. Gutter Cleaning & downpipe inspection £384.00 This was not disputed. [NAME] £170.00 This was not disputed. Door Lock replacement and repair £0.00 £675 is claimed for a door lock replacement.

The invoice on bundle page 139 to 142 dated 17.10.23 refers to ‘lock busted’ and follows a [NAME] repair on 15.10.23. It appears to be the same door, for example the mat in the photographs is the same. This suggests that there were two separate events but there was no clarity from the Respondent on this and two breaks in such close proximity is possible but unlikely. The cost claimed is also high for a call out and lock replacement, for example 5 hours labour.

It appears there are multiple invoices for what appear the same work. There is enough doubt in subsequent work. We therefore allow the invoice on 15.10.23 for £354 as below but disallow subsequent invoices as we were not satisfied that these were reasonably incurred.

We disallow £675. Front Door Forced open £354.00 As above, we have some concerns over the various invoices for door repairs which seem to be duplicative.

We allow £354. Inspection of Property due to Antisocial Behaviour £0.00 As above, we have some concerns over the various invoices for door repairs which seem to be duplicative.

There is insufficient to detail to establish what work was actually carried out and why it was necessary so we are not satisfied this cost was reasonably incurred. We also have concerns over the sum claimed as it appears from other service charge items that the contractors were on site on the day claimed in any event.

We disallow £360. Various Works £450.00 £900 is claimed for various items including installing dummy security cameras.

3

Schedule 1 of the leases covers safety and amenity, so we consider this in principle to be a service charge item and not an improvement.

One cannot expect every invoice to have granular detail. However, times spent are not stated and the cost seems high for the work listed. There is no supporting evidence for some work, such as waste disposal certificates.

We allow £375 plus VAT = £450. Hinges repair, Door installation £720.00 £720 is claimed for door hinge replacement.

We do not consider the sum claimed to be excessive and there is photographic evidence of the hinge being taken off. The Applicants contended that 2 hours labour was reasonable and the 5 hours claimed excessive. We do not consider the overall cost unreasonable as this type of work does take time to disassemble and properly fit parts.

We allow £720. Security Door installation £0.00 As above, we have some concerns over the various invoices for door repairs which seem to be duplicative.

In respect of this item, we noted that the photographs of the doors did not appear to show new handles, calling into question whether [NAME] work for replacement had been carried out as claimed. There was no specification, breakdown or invoice for the door itself.

We disallow £900. Expenditure by [NAME] as per schedule £7,119.94 £7,569.94 is claimed for expenditure by the [NAME] and we were shown a breakdown on bundle page 164.

The Applicants were only challenging the management fee for the [NAME] agent on 29.09.23 of £450. It was not clear whether this was an advance management fee as they appeared to charge in six monthly intervals in February and September. The Applicants contended that it may be a transfer or handover fee. It may also be conveyancing costs associated with obtaining a management pack. The position is not clear. However, this predates ownership by the Respondent.

We therefore disallow £450 but allow the remaining sum of £7,119.94. Accountants fee £480.00 £480 is claimed for accountancy fees.

The Applicants contended that there were accountants had not carried out due diligence on figures provided by the Respondent and had effectively ‘rubber stamped’ what was given to them. We clarified that the complaint was not calculation errors in the sense of arithmetical ones.

4

This was not an audit and we would not expect a detailed interrogation of primary records for the price paid. It is purely conjecture that they had not done any due diligence.

The sum claimed is reasonable for end of year accounts.

We allow £480. Management fee December 2022/2023 £276.95

£1,872 is claimed by the Respondent’s managing [NAME] for their time managing [NAME] in this Financial Year.

The Respondent can only properly charge for the period the Respondent owned [NAME]. 08.11.23-31.12.23 (54 days).

There was insufficient evidence of the [NAME] not performing duties at all or inadequately. There were no specific allegations or witness evidence supporting any such allegation.

The annualised fee of £1,872 is £72 more than the [NAME] charged in the [NAME].

The [NAME] contended for £200 per month which we consider much higher than this and not reasonable.

We allow £1,872 per annum pro-rated leaving £276.95 for the remainder of the 2023 Financial Year. Total £11,007.30

5

1 January 2024 – 1 December 2024 Insurance premium + broker fee June 2024/2025 £1,594.17 £2,195.75 is claimed for insurance costs covering an insurance period 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2025. We were not provided with an invoice, only the policy certificate. The Applicants submitted that they did not accept the accountants certification. However, there was no basis to believe that it was fraudulent and the policy certificate evidenced that cover was taken out.

The costs claimed should be apportioned so sums post-dating the RTM decision should be disallowed. 01.01.24-22.09.24 (265 days).

We allow £1,594.17. Common parts Cleaning £972.00 £1,566 is claimed for cleaning of the common parts.

We consider £45 plus VAT per visit with two visits month for common parts serving 12 units to be reasonable.

The invoices for May and June on bundle pages 176 and 177 are double the usual price with no explanation. We disallow the extra amounts as they are not justified.

The Applicants suggested in the hearing that cleaning was not carried out or carried out adequately. In the absence of witness evidence or photographs we did not accept that there were sufficient inadequacies to justify nonpayment.

We allow £108 per month for the 9 months of ownership prior to the RTM decision = £972. Maintenance of [ADDRESS] £1,404.00 £1,716 is claimed for maintenance of the communal gardens.

There was insufficient evidence about the frequency or quality of work. The Applicants did not contend that nothing at all had been done. At its highest, they said there were still weeds in the ground and similar issues. There were photographs supporting invoices for 4 of the 12 months claimed. However, these were provided in black and white and it was difficult to identify any significant defect in the work. We were not prepared to assume that the absence of photographs for the other 8 months of the year justified a conclusion that no, or inadequate, work was carried out.

The Applicants agreed that £156 per month is a reasonable cost and we concur.

6 We allow £156 per month for the 9 months of ownership prior to the RTM decision = £1,404. Window Cleaning £396.00 £528 is claimed for window cleaning.

We consider that reference to ‘condition’ in Schedule 1 of the leases includes cleanliness. The Applicants accepted this at the hearing. External window cleaning is therefore a recoverable cost under the service charge. Internal window cleaning falls within each demise under clauses 3.3 and 3.5 of the leases.

The Applicants contended that once a year was reasonable. We noted that the window cleaning had been carried out quarterly in [NAME] years. This seems reasonable, once a year is not realistic as contended by the Applicants.

We allow 3 cleans for the 9 months of ownership prior to the RTM decision at £110 plus VAT per clean.

We allow £396. Gutter Cleaning & downpipe inspection £255.00 £768 is claimed for gutter cleaning and downpipe inspection.

We noted that the historic pattern seemed to be once per year. The Applicants contended that such would be reasonable.

We were concerned that the invoices shown at bundle pages 212 and 213 were high compared with [NAME] years, for example £192 in 2021 on bundle page 600.

We allow the sum of £192 uplifted by approximately 10% each year = £255. Fire Health & Safety testing, Services and Repairs £676.80 £819 is claimed for fire testing including intercoms.

We consider it reasonable to test intercoms as part of fire safety to ensure people can exit the building.

We allow flick testing for the 9 months of ownership prior to the RTM decision at £28.20 per occasion, together with the intercom call out at £288, new battery at £120 and a logbook at £15 inclusive. These were the only invoices disclosed for the 9 month period of ownership.

We therefore allow a total of £676.80 as above. Drains Service and Multiple Repairs plus £2,920.80 £6,443.40 is claimed for various drain works across several invoices in a 3-4 month period.

7 CCRV & Tanker Engineer There was no evidence of a section 20 consultation whereas the works incurred would suggest that such a requirement was triggered by the overall costs being more than £3,000/£250 per household. Accordingly, the costs would be capped at £3,000 in any event.

We consider it reasonable to inspect on 14.01.24 per the invoice on bundle page 240. The report arising from that inspection identifies pipework in bad condition, manhole cover replacement needed and other works. The report on bundle page 243 recommended a full clean and other works.

We would allow £114 for 2 inspections and £2,692.80 for the 13.03.24 invoice for clearance with tankers which comprised recommended works and the amounts reasonable. The contractors report suggests that they were on site between 9am to 4pm with tankers. We took account that [NAME] visits were £408 per occasion however there was evidence of substantial works recommended by a report.

There is insufficient evidence of why further visits were necessary after such a comprehensive clean of the drains and no breakdown of costs associated with them. Some of those visits post dated the RTM decision so would be disallowed in any event.

We allow £2,920.80. Fire Health & Safety Risk Assessment £0.00 £472.20 is claimed for a fire health and safety risk assessment.

We are not satisfied this cost was reasonably incurred. There was a report carried out in May 2023. There is no explanation for why a new report was needed only 7 months later.

We disallow £472.20. [NAME] of grit to footpath during icy weather £168.00 £168 is claimed for gritting works.

We consider that this was reasonable to incur. It is not always a precise prediction, the Applicants stated that the weather did not drop below zero degrees on the day in question but there was independent evidence of this nor would it negate a reasonable estimation by the Respondent.

The amount not excessive notwithstanding what appeared to be a limited area of footpath. It was not clear on the evidence of how far common parts extend however a call out fee and time spent on site would be expected and the sum claimed is not excessive even for a single footpath.

We allow £168.

8 Visual Installation Condition Report £597.60 £597.60 is claimed for a Visual Installation Condition Report.

The 5 year intervals is a recommendation only. It is not unreasonable to carry out an interim inspection. We were not told the age of the system. It is not entirely irrelevant that some aspects of the system failed the inspection because this might suggest that more frequent inspections were appropriate.

It appears from the invoices at bundle pages 483 and 487 that there were two visits for flats 1-6 and then flats 7-12 two months apart.

We consider that this was reasonable cost, and the price seems reasonable.

We allow £597.60. Call out for failed lights & time delay switches £513.96 £513.96 is claimed for a light and time delay switch call out.

We consider it was reasonable to repair and in any event we have found that the VICR was reasonably incurred. A report does not always accompany an invoice so the absence of one does not negate the cost.

The amounts are not excessive. We have considered any duplication but this is not apparent so the Applicant not discharged the burden of proving this.

We allow £513.96. Installation of gland on supply armoured cable £1,121.04 £1,121.04 is claimed for various works as shown on bundle pages 495 to 499 including a new fuse board.

We consider it was reasonable to repair and in any event, we have found that the VICR was reasonably incurred. A report does not always accompany an invoice so the absence of one does not negate the cost.

The amounts are not excessive. We have considered any duplication, but this is not apparent so the Applicant not discharged the burden of proving this.

We allow £1,121.04. Supply & installation of new door handles and other door handle works £0.00 £654 is claimed for new door handles.

It is possible that there has been some vandalism, but we had no evidence of this.

We have expressed concerns about door expenditure in 2023.

9 We are not satisfied that this cost is not a duplication of 2023 services or in any event reasonably occurred or reasonably in amount. The photographs on pages 158-162 and 504 show the same wear markings suggesting one or other invoices were not justified.

We disallow £654. Remedial Electrical Works £ 0.00 £798 is claimed for electrical remediation work.

We have found that the VICR was reasonable so works reported would be potentially justifiable. However no report was available, and we cannot see any justification or indication as to what was done either on the invoice or from the Respondent.

We disallow £798. Individual fire door checks and fitting of smoke seals £0.00 £1,500 is claimed for individual fire door checks and fitting of smoke seals.

The invoice on bundle page 508 suggests only an inspection and not actual fitting or other works.

We find that it would not be reasonable to expect the Respondent to rely on individual leaseholders for fire safety of their front doors. The Respondent is still responsible for the building.

It is reasonable to inspect. The inspection does not appear to have been carried out over more than one day nor does it appear that any actual remedial work was carried out. There is no evidence that a specialist firm was used or of the qualifications of those who did inspect. The price seems excessive for one days work for inspection only.

However, we are concerned that there is duplication of work with the invoice for £504 shown on bundle page 550. We have allowed that cost as one inspection was reasonable.

We disallow £1,500. Electrical cupboard fire remedial works £0.00 £480 is claimed for electrical cupboard fire remedial works.

The invoice shown at bundle page 512 and 513 does not indicate that any work actually carried out. The photographs of the cupboard do not assist this either. There is no report explaining whether the invoice covers inspection, remedial works or both.

We disallow £480. Communal area touch ups £ 975.00 £975 is claimed for touch up painting work.

10 We do not consider such a cost to be unreasonable.

The photographs on bundle pages 515 to 518 are in black and white and do not assist however the invoice on bundle page 514 suggests work was carried out.

We did not have full details of the communal area involved but were told this was at least the stairwell of two flights. The costs are not excessive.

We allow £975. Standard BNO Audit £0.00 £3,204 is claimed for a standard audit by a company called BNO.

There was no report so we cannot be sure why this audit was needed or what it found especially given the EICR carried out 18 months prior and the VICR a few months prior. We also had concerns but insufficient evidence as to BNO’s qualifications. We were shown a [NAME] Tribunal judgment from over a year ago casting doubt over their qualifications but this was of limited assistance given the passage of time.

We disallow £3,204. Various BNO Repair work £1,200.00 £1,200 is claimed for repair works relating to the electrical installation.

The invoice is itemised, and we consider it reasonable to undertake emergency repairs. As above, there is no evidence the contractors were not qualified. There was insufficient evidence that the lights on bundle pages 491, 493 and 494 were the same.

We allow £1,200. Installation of electrical safety mats £600.00 £900 is claimed for electrical safety matts supply and fit.

It was not clear from the photographs at bundle pages 524 to 528 however there appear to be 2 mats.

We consider that the materials cost is not likely to be more than £150 together with labour at around the same. This would mean £300 per mat. There is no evidence of what additional labour would be required.

We allow £600. Improvement works to emergency lighting as per report £0.00 £2,950 is claimed for improvement works to emergency lighting.

11 We find that this is not substantiated and we have some concerns about duplication or in any event why lighting was replaced so quickly after a [NAME] replacement. There appears to be some duplication with the burn marks on the light fitting shown in the photographs on bundle page 498 supporting once invoice being the same as on bundle page 531 supporting the invoice for this work on bundle page 529.

There is lack of clarity over the extent of work, number of lights, labour hours and materials costs.

We are not satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred or reasonable in amount.

We disallow £2,950. Repair to burnt external cable £0.00 £234 is claimed for a repair to a burnt external cable.

We are not satisfied that this item was reasonably incurred. It remains unclear why a cable would be repaired if replacing the entire fitting.

We disallow £234. Various remedial works including replacing fused spur and maglock installation £1,927.20 £1,927.20 is claimed for various works as described in the invoice shown at bundle page 537 to 538.

The invoice demonstrates that work was carried out to replace a faulty maglock. If it was sensible to do an upgrade this is not always an improvement.

It was reasonable to incur these costs even if the Respondent knew that it may lose the right to manage in the near future. It must still discharge its duties until that time.

The costs are not excessive.

We allow £1,927.20. Door Works as per Section 20 Notice £0.00 £6,490 is claimed for door works under a section 20 notice.

We were not provided with evidence of a section 20 consultation process. If it applied and was not carried out the cost would be limited to £3,000/£250 per household.

We cannot establish the need for a new door at all.

We cannot comment on the costs claimed without a specification labour charge, materials charge and similar details.

12 We are not satisfied that this cost was reasonably incurred or is reasonable in amount.

We disallow £6,490. [NAME] £144.00 £144 is claimed for [NAME].

We reject the Applicants position that there was nothing to PAT test. The Applicants in the First [NAME] did not dispute this item but those for the [NAME] argued there was no relevant equipment. We noted that it was agreed that there was an aerial as referenced in the invoice and the fact it was not used by some or all leaseholders does not negate the need to test it.

We allow £144. Fire Door Inspection pre works £504.00 £504 is claimed for fire door inspection.

As we have noted above, it would be reasonable to inspect the doors had this not been carried out 9 months before in respect of the 12 individual [NAME] doors as shown in the invoice at bundle page 508. There is duplication therefore.

We accept that it was reasonable to inspect all 21 doors but only one inspection was required. The second invoice is clearer as to what was inspected. We have therefore rejected the invoice at bundle page 508 as above and accept that the invoice at bundle page 550 was reasonably incurred and is reasonable in amount.

We allow £504. BNO improvement works as per report £500.00 £1,105.49 is claimed for improvement works arising from a report which we have not seen.

As noted above, we have some concerns about whether the report was necessary. The works appear to have been carried out but the nature of the works does not justify the high sum claimed.

We consider that 5 hours at £100 per hour would be reasonable.

We allow £500. [NAME] to prepare insurance reinstatement cost assessment £0.00 £2,340 is claimed for an insurance reinstatement cost re-valuation.

The invoice is dated after the RTM decision and there is no evidence the work was carried out earlier.

We accept that a re-valuation would otherwise have been reasonable in principle but further information would be needed about the basis of the report, such as whether it was carried out in person or was desktop only.

13 We disallow £2,340. [NAME] to prepare pre planned maintenance schedule £0.00 £1,980 is claimed for a [NAME] preparing a planned maintenance schedule.

We would otherwise have allowed this cost as reasonable to carry out and reasonable in amount based on average [NAME] rates for a day (equating to about £200 per hour for a days work).

We disallow £1,980. Accountants fee £500.00 £600 is claimed for accountancy fees.

The Applicants raised the same arguments as for 2023 that the work did not appear to include due diligence. We find that the accountants would not be expected to conduct an audit or interrogate primary records for this exercise.

The cost has increased by 25% on the [NAME] year with no obvious difference to the work involved.

We consider £500 reasonable for this work allowing for an inflationary increase on the [NAME] year.

We allow £500. Management fee December 2023/2024 £1,452.00 £3,787.20 is claimed by the Respondent’s managing [NAME] for their time managing [NAME] in this Financial Year.

The Respondent can only properly charge for the period the Respondent owned [NAME] up until the RTM decision. 01.01.24-22.09.24 (265 days).

The fee claimed is over twice the fee claimed in the [NAME]. The [NAME] contended for £200 per month which we consider not reasonable.

We allow for an inflationary increase on the annualised sum of £1,872 charged in the [NAME] year, rounded to £2,000 per annum. For the period in question this would be £1,452.

We allow £1,452. Total £18,421.57

14

1 January 2025 – 31 December 2025 All service charges for the Financial Year 01.01.25 to 31.12.25

These costs are disallowed in full due to the Respondent not being responsible for the management of [NAME] after 22 September 2024. None of the Applicants made direct challenges to individual service charge items however it was not necessary to consider them any further given our finding as above.