Tribunal Rules on Service Charges for Kingswood Estate

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0156

Property : Various Properties on [NAME], London SE21 Applicants :

[redacted] as per the Schedule attached to the [NAME] : [NAME] [COUNSEL], counsel 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 [NAME] : 10 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE]

Dates of hearing Date of decision :

6 & 7 October 2025 and 3 February 2026 10 April 2026

DECISION

2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal makes the decisions set out below.

The [NAME] 1. This is an [NAME] made under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

seeking the tribunal’s determination as to the payability and

reasonableness of service charges levied by the London Borough of

Southwark as part of the [NAME] 2018/19 Major

Works Contract. The background 2. The applicants are all [NAME] spread over the 26 blocks that make

up the [NAME]. The respondent is the [NAME] and

landlord. The leases 3. The applicants’ leases were originally granted under the ‘right to buy.’

While there are minor variations between the leases depending on when

they were granted, the terms relied upon are identical in all of the leases

as follows:

The relevant parts of Clause 4 provides in respect of the

landlord’s obligations:

(2) To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and of

the building (including drains gutters and external pipes) and to

make good any defect affecting that structure

(3) To keep in repair the common parts of the building and any

other property over or in respect of which the [NAME] has any

rights under the First Schedule hereto

(4) As often as may be reasonably to paint in a good

workmanlike manner with two coats of good quality paint all

outside parts of the building usually painted and also all internal

common parts of the Building usually painted

4(5) To provide the services more particularly hereinbefore set

out the definition of “services” to or for the flat and to ensure so

far as it practicable that they are maintained at a reasonable

3

level and to keep in repair any installation connected with the

provision of those services.

The ‘services’ means:

the services provided by the Council to or in respect of the flat

and other flats or premises in the building and on the [NAME] and

more particularly set out hereunder (where and when

applicable):

(i) Security Services

(ii) Electricity

(iii) [NAME]

(iv) Door Entry

(v) Concierge (including CCTV)

(vi)Lift

(vii) TV Aerial

(viii) Unitemised Repairs

(ix) Grounds Maintenance

(x) Care and

(xi) Heating (xii) Water Tanks”

Paragraph 6 of the Third Schedule provides:

(1) The Service Charge payable by the [NAME] shall be a fair

proportion of the costs and expenses set out in paragraph 7 of

this Schedule incurred in the year.

(2) The Council may adopt any reasonable method of

ascertaining the said proportion and may adopt different

methods in relation to different items costs and expenses.’

The relevant parts of Paragraph 7 of the Third

Schedule provides:

The said costs and expenses are all costs and expenses of or

incidental to

(1) The carrying out of all works required by sub-clause (2) to (4)

inclusive of Clause 4 of this lease …

(2) Providing the Services hereinbefore defined

(3) Insurance under sub-clause (6) of Clause 4 of this lease

4

(6) the maintenance and management of the Building and the

[NAME] (but not the maintenance of any other building comprised

in the [NAME])…

(7) the employment of any managing agents appointed by the

council… …

(9) installation (by way of improvement) of:

(i) double glazing

(ii) entry phone The issues 4. The issues in dispute were identified as:

(i) Whether the leases only allow the respondent to recover service

charges for named improvements, being the installation of an

entry phone system and double-glazed windows.

(ii) Whether there is any clause in any of the leases entitling the

respondent to recover service charges for complying with

statutory requirements, for example the Regulatory

Reform ([NAME]) Order 2005 (as amended).

(iii) Whether there is a ‘sweeping up’ provision or clause entitling the

respondent to recover service charges not specifically recoverable

under any other clause. 5. The applicants challenged the payability and reasonableness of part of

the service charges levied by the respondent as part of the ‘[NAME] 2018/19 Major Works Contract. In particular the

applicants challenged their obligation to pay the following items:

(i) Front Entrance Doors (partially conceded by respondent)

(ii) [NAME]

(iii) Communal lighting

(iv) [NAME] to balcony floors

(v) Internal cavity wall insulation (conceded by respondent)

(vi) Supply and fit of loft insulation (conceded by respondent) 6. The respondent asserted that all works undertaken as part of the QHIP

2018/19 Major Works Contract fall within the landlord’s obligations

5

under the leases and are recoverable under the service charge provisions

they contain. Further, the respondent submitted that the works are

consistent with the need to maintain the buildings to modern safety and

energy efficiency standards, thereby ensuring the long-term habitability

and value of the properties. The hearing 7. At the oral hearing, the applicant was represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL],

counsel. The respondent was represented by [NAME] [COUNSEL],

counsel. The tribunal was provided with a digital bundle of 2146 pages

which included expert reports relied on by the applicant from [APPELLANT] dated 1 March 2021 ([NAME]) and letter dated 27 November

2024; [NAME] dated 5 May 2021 and 15 December 2024

([NAME]); [NAME] dated April 2024 and November

2024 ([NAME]). 8. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant’s witnesses [NAME]

[APPELLANT]; [NAME] [APPELLANT] (lead applicant); [NAME] [APPELLANT] and [NAME]

[APPELLANT]. 9. The tribunal heard oral evidence on behalf of the respondent from [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] who formally adopted the written evidence of [NAME] [NAME] (Senior Electrical Engineer); [NAME] [NAME] ([NAME]); [NAME] [NAME] (Major Works project

Manager; and [NAME] [NAME] (Capital Works Consultation

Officer).

10. Included in the hearing bundle were the s.20 consultation letters and

documents; Block Fire Risk Assessments for the subject blocks on the

[NAME]; Feasibility Reports – QHIP and [NAME]. The respondent provided a Table detailing the Leaseholder

Front Entrance Doors Renewed; Table of [NAME];

Table of [NAME] and Lighting works; Table of Balcony

works; Table of Cavity Wall insulation works and Provisional final

Accounts. Preliminary matters 11. At the beginning of the hearing, the respondent sought to rely upon

further additional evidence in respect of the flat doors of 3 of the

additional applicants joined to the [NAME] by the tribunal in an

Order dated 4 August 2025 and contained in a report/table compiled

from an inspection of the front entrance doors on 09/12/2022. The

tribunal determined it was reasonable and appropriate to admit this into

evidence.

6 Repair or improvement 12. The applicants’ central submission in this [NAME] was that the

majority of the works carried out were works of improvement for which

they were not required to contribute any sum. 13. The applicants asserted that:

(1) The extent to which the Landlord may recover the costs of

improvements is expressly limited to two, particularly

defined, matters.

(2) The Leases do not contain any obligation on the Landlord

to comply with regulatory requirements or legislation or to

recover the cost of the same from [NAME];

(3) The Leases do not contain any typical ‘sweeping-up

provision,’ though it will be seen that the respondent

(impermissibly) relies on para. 6(7) as a broad obligation

to contribute to numerous matters that are not expressly

referred to in the Landlord’s covenants or elsewhere in the

service charge mechanism. 14. The respondent submitted that the major works were not works of

improvement and fell within:

(1) the obligation in clause 4(2) as a work of repair, and/or a

work of maintenance and/or a work ‘to make good any

defect affecting that structure’ (in that non-fire safe

materials, and the absence of the same, constitutes a

defect affecting the structure of both the flats and the

building); and

(2) within Paragraph 7(6) of the 3rd Schedule of the lease,

which allows the recharge for works necessary for the

maintenance and management of the block; and

(3) within clause 4(5) as provision of a Service (lighting only). 15. In Holding & [COMPANY] v [NAME] & [COMPANY] [1990] 1 All ER 938, the CA held at p.945 the Court of Appeal held,

Thus the exercise involves considering the context in which the

word “repair” appears in a particular lease and also the defect

and remedial works proposed. Accordingly, the circumstances

to be taken into account in a particular case under one or other

of these heads will include some or all of the following: the nature

7

of the building, the terms of the lease, the state of the building at

the date of the lease, the nature and extent of the defect sought to

be remedied, the nature, extent, and cost of the proposed

remedial works, at whose expense the proposed remedial works

are to be done, the value of the building and its expected lifespan,

the effect of the works on such value and lifespan, current

building practice, the likelihood of a recurrence if one remedy

rather than another is adopted, the comparative cost of

alternative remedial works and their impact on the use and

enjoyment of the building by the occupants. The weight to be

attached to these circumstances will vary from case to case. 16. The respondent also relied upon [NAME] v Hounslow London Borough

Council [2017] EWCA Civ 45, [2017] 1 WLR 2817, per Lewison LJ at para

14:

I do not believe that the following propositions are controversial

in the context of contractual liability.

(i) The concept of repair takes as its starting point the

proposition that that which is to be repaired is in a

physical condition worse than that in which it was at

some earlier time: [NAME] v Taff Ely Borough Council

[1986] QB 809.

(ii) Where the deterioration is the product of an inherent

defect in the design or construction of the building the

carrying out of works to eradicate that defect may be

repair: [COMPANY] v Davstone ([COMPANY] [1980] QB 12.

(iii) Prophylactic measures taken to avoid the recurrence of

the deterioration may also be repair: the [COMPANY] case, at para 22, [NAME] v Easington

District Council (1989) 21 HLR 310, 315.

(iv) In principle where there is a choice of methods of carrying

out repair, the choice is that of the covenantor provided

that the choice is a reasonable one: [COMPANY] v Manchester City Council [1989] 1 EGLR 244.

(v) At common law there is no bright line division between

what is a repair and what is an improvement: the

[NAME] case at p 315. 3

(vi) The use of better materials or the carrying out of

additional work required by building regulations or in

order to conform with good practice does not preclude

8

works from being works of repair: [COMPANY]

v [NAME] the [COMPANY] [1996] 2 EGLR 60. 17. The respondent also referred the tribunal to [RESPONDENT] where Lewison LJ

went on to hold,

In my judgment, therefore, whether costs have been reasonably

incurred is not simply a question of process: it is also a question

of outcome. That said it must always be borne in mind that

where the landlord is faced with a choice between different

methods of dealing with a problem in the physical fabric of a

building (whether the problem arises out of a design defect or

not) there may be many outcomes each of which is reasonable. I

agree with [NAME] [NAME] that the tribunal should not simply impose

its own decision. If the landlord has chosen a course of action

which leads to a reasonable outcome the costs of pursuing that

course of action will have been reasonably incurred, even if there

was another cheaper outcome which was also reasonable. 18. The respondent submitted that the lease enables the respondent to

recover the costs of ‘providing the Services hereinbefore defined’

(Schedule 3, para 7(2). The recovery of those costs is independent of para

7(1), which refers back only to clauses 4(2) t0 (4) of the lease. The use of

the verb ‘providing’ does not exclude the provision of a service which

might constitute an improvement, so called, and should not be

construed as being limited to mere repair or maintenance. 19. Having considered the parties oral submissions and the documents

relied upon, the tribunal makes the decisions below. Service charge item - Front Entrance Doors Decision 20. The tribunal records the respondent’s limited concessions in respect of

not recharging the applicants for part of these costs. 21. The tribunal finds the remaining costs of these works are within clause

4(2) of the lease and are reasonable and payable by the [NAME]. Reasons 22. In reaching its decision, the tribunal had regard to the case of [NAME] of the St. [NAME] [2017] UKUT (LC). This

decision concerned the same respondent and the same leases and was a

successful challenge by [NAME] to a door replacement programme.

9

In that case the respondent was not permitted to recover the costs of

replacing doors that it could not prove were in disrepair. 23. The tribunal finds these works were not works of improvement but form

part of the maintenance and repair of the building. The tribunal accepts

the respondent’s evidence as to the (old) age of many of these doors and

their state of repair, deterioration due to age and level of fire resistance

as well as the unauthorised replacements by some [NAME] (as these

doors do not fall within the demise) and the need to comply with current

statutory requirements in respect of [NAME]. 24. The tribunal finds that there were several options put forward in respect

of remedial work to these doors, the tribunal finds the respondent’s

choice of replacement was a considered, reasonable and cost effective

choice that reasonably ensured uniformity of [NAME] across the

[NAME]. 25. In this instance, the tribunal finds the scope and nature of the works was

considered by the respondent after the receipt of both independent and

internal expert evidence and advice, in addition to the observations

received from the [NAME]. Thereafter, the respondent made

carefully considered choices as to what works would be carried out and

their cost both in the short term and with regard to any long-term cost

saving benefits. 26. Although the applicants challenged the respondent’s decision to replace

these doors and asserted it was both unnecessary for [NAME] reasons

and amounted to works of improvement, the tribunal preferred the

evidence relied upon by the respondent to that of the applicants. The

applicants relied upon the report of [NAME] [NAME] [NAME], MSET, MCABE,

QTLS, [NAME], FIFireE of [COMPANY]. In oral evidence to

the tribunal [NAME] [NAME] told the tribunal that the works to the [NAME] marked

‘Light Red’ on the Table of Works had been conceded by the

respondent as not chargeable to the applicants and those marked ‘Green’

he accepted were works that were required because ‘they were not fire

doors.’ In his report, [NAME] [NAME] stated,

It follows, therefore, that, in respect of the blocks on the

[NAME], the requirement to replace existing fire doors

should have been assessed on a case-by-case basis as part of an

individual fire risk assessment for each block, based on risk. 27. On cross-examination [NAME] [NAME] conceded that he had not known at the

time of [NAME] his report a door by door inspection had been carried out

on behalf of the respondent although ‘he knew this now.’ He did not

carry out a similarly comprehensive survey himself. The tribunal also

noted that his report did not include any photographic evidence to

support his case. [NAME] [NAME] maintained in evidence that the doors should

be only replaced when they were beyond economic repair and that

10

everything else such as hinges, letter boxes/plates and gaps could be

remedied or adjusted. However, [NAME] [RESPONDENT] accepted in cross-examination

that the respondent’s decision to replace the doors was a choice that was

open to the respondent. He also accepted that he had not considered the

issue of ‘remediation’ in his report as his instructions from the applicants

had not required this. 28. The applicants submitted it was difficult to understand the rationale

for the respondent’s decision to replace the vast majority of [NAME] and

asserted the Respondent appears to have made a blanket decision to

replace doors that were not certified as in compliance with the

FD30 standard, although that is a standard that is applicable to new

installations (but not doors already in situ). The applicant also relied on

the evidence of [NAME] [APPELLANT] who stated in his evidence that,

Based on my own assessment of the original fire doors inspected,

I am of the opinion that these doors could be determined to be

“notional” fire doors and would, consequently, offer a suitable

level of fire resistance to protect the means of escape in the event

of a fire. 29. The applicants asserted that unless these doors were in disrepair, the

costs of the works upgrading their fire standard and any works

recommended by the Regulatory Reform ([NAME]) Order 2005 (as

amended) were not recoverable from the [NAME] as the leases do

not contain any obligation on the Landlord to comply with regulatory

requirements or legislation or to recover the cost of the same from

[NAME]. Further, the leases do not contain any typical ‘sweeping-up

provision.’ 30. The applicant also submitted that the respondent (impermissibly) relies

on para. 6(7) as a broad obligation to contribute to numerous matters

that are not expressly referred to in the Landlord’s covenants or

elsewhere in the service charge mechanism. 31. The respondent relied on the evidence of [NAME] [RESPONDENT] who spoke to his

witness statement dated 7 May 2025. [NAME] [NAME] described the

methodology used as,

[NAME] offered the Council an inspection process that followed

the clauses of a third party certificated fire door inspection

scheme (BRE Global LPCB Loss Prevention Standard 1197).

However, the objective as explained to us by the Project

Manager, [NAME] [NAME], was more of an assessment of the

option to retain the [NAME], so the process did not proceed through

the third-party certification route. However, the principles and

practices of the schemes were constantly referred to.

11

The concept of the process was fundamentally a risk-based

survey which assessed the fire resisting potential of [NAME] with

an objective of advising the Council on whether they have the

option to retain existing [NAME] and still meet their mandatory life

safety requirement. I was responsible for assigning competent

fire door inspectors, initial assessments and overall project

validation. I was also assigned the risk rating for each doorset

based upon severity resulting from any breach of fire

compartmentation via FED failure and applied recommended

timescale for any works.

…

The process resulted in the assessment of 239 [NAME]; the headline

results were:

(i). 138 [NAME] needed to be fire resisting but did not have the

potential to meet the minimum standard with a

recommendation to be replaced.

(ii) 27 [NAME] had adequate fire resistance or there was no

requirement for fire resistance and did not require

replacement.

(iii) 74 [NAME] that also needed to be fire resisting had faults

that could be remediated. 32. The tribunal accepted [NAME] [APPELLANT] criticism of the limitations of the

applicant’s expert’s approach and CSTA’s failure to understand the

respondent’s concern and consideration of risk and accepts the

respondent’s works to the doors was a necessary and urgent measure

directly related to enhanced [NAME] standards, which arose from a

comprehensive review of [NAME] following the Grenfell Tower fire.

The respondent had found, after every door was inspected, that the

existing doors, while potentially functional under previous

regulations, did not conform to the rigorous standards now required

under the Regulatory Reform ([NAME]) Order 2005 and the more

recent [NAME] 2021 and lacked the necessary certification to

guarantee their effectiveness as fire barriers. 33. The tribunal accepts the respondent’s assertions based on the evidence

of [NAME] [RESPONDENT], that the older doors often did not achieve the FD30

standard, which mandates that doors must provide at least 30 minutes

of fire resistance to prevent the spread of fire and smoke, thereby

protecting escape routes and providing vital time for residents to

evacuate safely and were therefore ‘defective.’

12 34. Although the tribunal had regard to the Upper Tribunal decision in St.

[NAME], the tribunal finds that this case centred around the

factual matrix and evidence heard and preferred by the First-tier

tribunal. The tribunal is satisfied that in this [NAME] the respondent

has produced persuasive, detailed evidence as to the reasons it

considered the front entrance doors (or a number of them) to be

defective and the reasons for their replacement rather than remediation.

The tribunal does not accept [NAME] [NAME] conclusion in his second report

that,

In my opinion, this entire case has resulted from a

disproportionate perception on the part of the Council that

failure to comply with current guidance for new buildings

equates to undue risk to occupants; in effect, the Council have

conflated non-compliance with serious risk, without any proper

assessment of the risk from any defects that might exist in

individual [NAME]. 35. The tribunal accepts the fire at Grenfell have brought sharply into focus

fire risks and the need for ongoing assessments of risk. The tribunal

however, found [NAME] [NAME] report to both detailed and wide-ranging in

its consideration of all the options available to the respondent. [NAME]

[RESPONDENT] considered that where there was a door with multiple issues it

would be both better and more cost effective to replace it rather than

getting multiple tradesmen to deal with the issues. An approach the

tribunal found to be a reasonable one. 36. The respondent asserted that the replacement of these doors was not an

arbitrary improvement but a response to a clear and present safety

requirement after careful consideration of the potential risks posed by

non-compliant doors, especially in a densely populated residential

[NAME] the Respondent maintains that the rigorous safety standards now

required justify the replacement of all non-compliant doors to ensure

consistency for all flats in [NAME] across the [NAME] 37. The tribunal finds the front entrance doors to the individual flats do not

form part of the demise and therefore remain the responsibility of the

landlord to maintain and keep in repair. The tribunal found [NAME] [NAME]

a good, credible witness who gave clear evidence to the tribunal about

the extensive involvement of himself and his team in the inspections of

the front entrance doors across the [NAME]. The tribunal accepts that in

reaching his conclusions that works of replacement of the doors was

‘maintenance’ and not improvement as he had regard to all relevant

matters including the current [NAME] standards, the height of the

block and the likely vulnerability of the residents due to age, health,

disability.

13 38. The tribunal finds the works of replacement of the front entrance doors

were not works of improvement but were works to remedy defects in

their fire resistance which could only be remedied by the replacement of

the original. In this instance the tribunal considered whether was there

evidence upon which it could properly be determined that any or all of

the replacement or altered original doors had dropped below the FD30

standard or rating and determined there was such evidence. 39. In conclusion, the tribunal finds that although there were several options

put forward in respect of remedial work to these doors, the

respondent’s choice of replacement was a considered, reasonable and

cost effective choice that ensured uniformity of [NAME] across the

[NAME].

Service charge item - [NAME] 40. The tribunal finds these works are works of repair and maintenance and

fall within the terms of the leases and are reasonable and payable by the

applicants. Reasons 41. These works were described as:

(i) the bricking up of coal and rubbish chutes

(ii) cladding staircase soffits,

(iii) signage as required

(iv) replacement of air bricks with intumescent vent covers,

(v) work to fire compartmentation in roof void and general

firestopping as required. 42. The applicants asserted that unless these works were specifically to

replace or repair items that have fallen into clear, evidencable, disrepair,

they would be improvements on the original design and original levels of

fire protection, and therefore were the financial responsibility of the

[NAME], and not recoverable under the leaseholder service charges. 43. The respondent told the tribunal it had conducted several Fire Risk

Assessments (FRA) on the [NAME] all of which were included in the

Hearing Bundle. The witness statement of [NAME] concluded

there was no adequate fire separation between the coal chutes and the

14

flat interior as this was how they were built in the 1940s and 1950s.

Consequently, smoke from a fire could travel around the block, using

the coal chute as its pathway. Therefore, for residents’ safety the coal

chutes needed to be bricked up if they could not be removed with

minor cosmetic work to any damage. The respondent asserted that all

the additional works are recoverable pursuant to Schedule 3, para 7(1)

and/or (6) of the lease, in so far as they might extend beyond simple

repair or maintenance. 44. The respondent asserted these works could be distinguished from those

in the Upper Tribunal decision limiting so-called ‘sweeper clauses’,

[NAME] v [NAME] of Brewster House and Malting House [2024] UKUT

193 (LC). The respondent stated it also relied on the 3rd Schedule, para

7(6) of the leases and its obligations to repair and maintain and expressly

includes [NAME] good defects affecting the structure of the flats

and building. Further, as para 7(6) of the 3rd Schedule does not follow

a long list of specific, express covenants, the parties to the leases

intended future relevant costs to be recoverable by the landlord. 45. The tribunal finds that the works listed above were reasonably required

as part of the landlord’s obligation to ‘repair and maintain’ and/or

obligation to maintain and manage the building and to make good

defects pursuant to Schedule 3 para 7(6) of the lease. The tribunal does

not agree with the applicants’ assertion that the removal of potentially

dangerous disused coal shutes; cladding of soffit entrances, the

installation of emergency signage, the replacement of air bricks with

intumescent vent covers and work to fire compartmentation in roof voids

and general firestopping as required can be considered to be

‘improvements.’ 46. [NAME] [APPELLANT] for the applicant in his report stated in respect of these

works,

These works are welcome – but it is important to point out that

unless these works are specifically to replace or repair items that

have fallen into clear, evidencable, disrepair, they would be

improvements on the original design and original levels of fire

protection, the financial responsibility of the [NAME], and not

recoverable under the leaseholder service charges. 47. The tribunal finds that these works are not works of improvement but

are works to remedy defects in the existing structure and fall within

Schedule 3 para 7(6) of the lease i.e. works concerning the maintenance

and management of the Building and the [NAME] (but not the

maintenance of any other building comprised in the [NAME])…

15 Service charge item - Communal lighting Decision 48. The tribunal finds these are not works of improvement except for the

element relating to the installation of the emergency lighting. 49. This element of cost attributable to this work should be deducted from

the overall cost of these communal lighting works, which are otherwise

Services which fall within the terms of lease and are payable by the

applicants. Reasons 50. These works were described as:

Re-wire communal lighting system serving block along walkways

& staircases including the installation of emergency lighting. As

well as re-wiring work includes renewal of light fittings. Re-wire

tank room power & lighting circuit, renew lighting writing to

intake room. 51. The applicants asserted the electrical works which have been required or

recommended because of Fire Risk Assessments are works of

improvements for which there is no provision in the leases to charge for

complying with statutory requirements. Consequently, the previous

communal lighting system has been replaced by a new ‘smart’ system

which also acts as emergency lighting although [NAME] [NAME] had found

the existing communal lighting system was in a reasonable state of

repair.

52. The applicants also challenged the works identified by [NAME] [NAME] as

work which is not consequential on repair work but was solely being

done as an improvement as;

(i) Installation MEM Glasgow TPN Isolator

(ii) Installation of Surge Protection

(iii) [NAME] heads to EDF tails

(iv) Install new lighting system to switch room.

53. The applicant submitted that works may be required to comply with

current statutory standards but as set out above, there is no provision

in the leases allowing the respondent to charge for complying with

statutory requirements,

16 54. The respondent asserted the leases define ‘services’ as including

electricity, lighting of common areas and/or [NAME] lighting (although

accepted there may be some minor variation amongst leases). Clause

4(5) of the leases obliges the respondent to provide the Services, and

to ensure so far as practicable that they are maintained at a reasonable

level, and to keep in repair any installation connected with the

provision of those Services. 55. The respondent asserted the leases enable the respondent to recover the

costs of ‘providing the Services hereinbefore defined’ under Schedule 3,

para 7(2). The respondent submitted the recovery of those costs is

independent of para 7(1), which refers back only to clauses 4(2) t0 (4) of

the lease. The use of the verb ‘providing’ does not exclude, therefore

the provision of a service which might constitute an improvement, so

called, and should not be construed as being limited to mere repair or

maintenance. 56. The respondent also submitted that the communal lighting and electrical

upgrades were necessary to ensure that the [NAME] complies with current

safety regulations, including the Regulatory Reform ([NAME]) Order

2005 and the [NAME] (BS 5266-

1:2016). The existing lighting systems on the [NAME] were outdated,

lacked emergency lighting provisions, and presented several safety risks,

particularly in communal areas where visibility is crucial in the event of

an emergency. 57. In his witness statement, [NAME], Senior Electrical Engineer,

detailed the deficiencies in the existing lighting systems, including

insufficient illumination, non-compliance with modern standards, and

the absence of emergency lighting. The electrical systems themselves

were said to be outdated, with wiring that was no longer compliant with

the current [NAME] ([NAME]) wiring regulations. 58. The respondent took the decision to upgrade the communal lighting

not only to enhance the safety of residents but also to reduce the long-

term maintenance costs associated with the old systems. The new

installations include LED lighting, which is more energy-efficient and

has a longer lifespan and the integrated emergency lighting, which is

crucial for ensuring safe evacuation routes in the event of an emergency.

LED lighting also has the benefit of allowing remote monitoring thus

removing the need for monthly on-site inspections. 59. The applicants relied on the expert report by [NAME], which

challenged the necessity of the full replacement of the lighting system,

arguing that parts of the system were still functional and could have been

repaired rather than replaced. 60. The tribunal finds these works fall within the terms of the leases.

However, the tribunal also finds the works were excessive in their scope

17

and unreasonable in so far as they included works to install emergency

lighting, which necessitated the ripping out of existing cables and

installation of new in order to accommodate it. 61. The tribunal finds the other works were reasonable and the costs of

which are recoverable from the applicants. Service charge item - [NAME] to balcony floors Decision 62. The tribunal finds these works are not works of improvement and that

the cost has been reasonably incurred by the respondent and is payable

by the applicants. Reasons 63. The applicants relied on the expert survey report of [NAME] and submitted these tiles are not part of the original building

construction and therefore are an improvement over and above the

original design and finish. 64. The respondent told the tribunal the costs of the tiles are recoverable

under clause 4(2) and (3) and 3rd Schedule para 7(1) of the leases,

and or in the alternative by virtue of para 7(6) thereof. The respondent

told the tribunal that [NAME] are an industry standard repair for

private balconies to provide protection from wear and tear and weather

damage over many years into the future (although now no longer

available and a similar substitute is sourced). 65. Consequently, the use of these tiles (or similar) does away with much

future cyclical maintenance cost. It is also relatively inexpensive to fit.

[NAME] are therefore a means of long term repair and maintenance,

rather than improvement. There is thus no restriction under the lease

on their fitting for this purpose. 66. Further, the respondent told the tribunal that a landlord is entitled to

consider long term repair solutions and does not have to use the same

repair method on every occasion. As with walkway asphalt, treating

private balconies with solar reflective paint is not an effective repair

method. After exposure to rain, the coating can become slippery under

foot. It is also liable to be worn away from the bare asphalt due to

residents’ normal usage of their balconies. 67. The respondent also stated that not all private balconies received

[NAME] or had an asphalt surface, despite the inclusion in the ‘TOP’

allowance. Additionally, several blocks, including ground-level private

18

balconies as well as rear private balconies, did not receive asphalt repairs

or tiling due to the absence of an asphalt-covered private balcony.

Moreover, specific balconies, such as the small semi-circular private

balconies did not receive tiling but did have asphalt repairs and

(possibly) solar paint applied. 68. The respondent told the tribunal that a mixture of approaches was

utilised in carrying out repairs to the damaged asphalt on balconies, with

some receiving tiles and others repairs to the asphalt and a covering of

reflective paint. Consequently, the cost of these works are both

reasonable and recoverable under the terms of the lease. 69. The tribunal finds it was accepted by the applicants and as evidenced in

[NAME] [NAME] report there was disrepair to the balconies on the [NAME]

and so were in need of repair and/or maintenance. The applicants did

not raise any objection to the requirement for works and confined their

objection to the use of Spartan tiling, although provided no alternative

costing. At the hearing it was suggested the cost of the balcony works

should be discounted by 28% to reflect the increase in cost by the use

of Spartan tiling. 70. The tribunal finds the use of Spartan tiling was not an improvement as

submitted by the applicants. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s

evidence that this was a cost-effective way to ensure maintenance of the

relevant balconies and it had given careful consideration to the cost and

effectiveness of this method as against the cheaper and less long-lasting

use of asphalt. Service charge item - Internal cavity wall insulation Decision 71. The tribunal records the respondent’s concession it will not recharge any

applicant for costs of Cavity Wall Insulation. Service charge item - Supply and fit of loft insulation Decision 72. The tribunal records the respondent’s concession it will not recharge any

applicant the cost of these works. [NAME] under s.20C and refund of fees 73. At the end of the hearing, the Applicant made an [NAME] seeking an

order that the respondent not be permitted to recover its costs of this

[NAME] through the service charges. Having heard the submissions

19

from the parties and taking into account the determinations above; the

applicants’ original position of ‘nothing is due’ to its Amended Statement

of Case and the concessions made by the respondent both before and

during the hearing, 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, so that the respondent may not pass more than 50% of its costs

incurred in connection with the proceedings before the tribunal through

the service charge.

Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 10 April 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] should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-[NAME]-for- permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28-day time limit, such [NAME] must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. 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).

20

Rights of appeal