Mont Dol, 58 Chalkwell Ave, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex SS0 8NN CAM/00KF/LSC/2025/0608

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No CAM/00KF/LSC/2025/0608
Between
Kelly Ivory-EmpegliazzoApplicantMr Edward Beale, Ms Deborah BurwoodRespondent
Before
Tribunal Judge S EvansMrs S. Redmond MRICSDate 15 October 2025Property: Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex SS0 8NNType of application: service charges; (2) Application for dispensation with consultation requirements

DECISION

The Tribunal determines that:(1) There has been no breach of the consultation regulations as alleged by the Respondents;(2) The costs challenged by the Respondents were all reasonable in amount, save that the Applicant’s cost for repairs to the bathstone pillars should be reduced by £300;(3) All the repairs challenged by the Respondents were undertaken to a reasonable standard;(4) The Tribunal declines to made an order in favour of the Respondents under s.20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and/or para 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;(5) The Tribunal orders the Respondents to reimburse the Applicant the following: (a) Hearing and application fees paid on the s.27A application; (b) Application fee (if paid) on the s.20ZA application.

REASONS

[1]The Applicant is the Tribunal appointed Manager of the property.[2]The Respondents are long leaseholders of flats within the Property. Miss Burwood is the leaseholder a flat 1 and Mr Beale the leaseholder of flat 3.[3]By way of an application pursuant to section 27A of the Landlord And Tenant Act 1985 dated 18 September 2024, the Applicant seeks a determination as to the payability of a major works demand in the sum of £25,721.70 per leaseholder dated 22 April 2024.[4]Further by way of an application filed on 28 August 2025, the Applicant seeks dispensation with all or any of the consultation requirements provided in section 20 of the Landlord And Tenant Act 1985.[5]The freehold title to the Property is registered at the Land Registry and the title number EX64641 and is registered jointly between the 4 leaseholders at the Property, namely the 2 Respondents plus Gayle King and Gillian Donovan Buck.[6]The Property comprises 4 flats and each flat is required to contribute 25% of the service costs incurred in relation to the Property.[7]The lease held by Ms Burwood dates from 1957 and is made between Lawhill Ltd as lessor and Marie Gilson Hunt as lessee, and registered under title number EX49836.[8]The lease of Mr Beale is dated September 2000 and registered under title number EX651176, incorporating the terms of a previous lease dated 31 August 1956.[9]Both the above leases have been extended under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 on the same terms, as far as material.[10]Matters appear to have progressed without event until 15 November 2020, when Mrs King expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of repair of the garages, a deteriorating garden wall, the state of the roof, and the condition of the drives and paths, amongst other things.[11]By 11 December 2020 Mrs King was writing to the other leaseholders in their capacity of freeholders about the above issues, and others.[12]By 26 February 2021 Mrs King had instructed lawyers to write to the freeholders about the issues, threatening a Notice under s.22 under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, unless management improved.[13]It took a year before the freeholders were able to agree a block management agreement with a body called Essex Guild Block Management (“EGBM”), part of Essex Homes Guild Ltd.[14]The Applicant in these proceedings Kelly Ivory-Empegliazzo is their Head of Block Management.[15]By 28 April 2022 EGBM had served a s.20 Notice of Intent for roof works, including tile replacement, repointing, guttering replacement, repairs to render, and repairs to the columns in front of the main entrance.[16]By 10 May 2022 EGBM had obtained a schedule of works for the above repairs, later undertaking a tender analysis. It sent it out to tender. EGBM then tried to arrange meetings, but Mr Beale and Ms Burwood would not attend.[17]By October 2022 EGBM was writing to Mr Beale and Ms Burwood, expressing regret at what was considered to be their very hostile and aggressive emails. The email expressed the view that they were trying to make the s.20 process as difficult as possible.[18]On 21 October 2022 Mrs King wrote to the other leaseholders, making several points on the s.20 process, including that Mr Beale and Ms Burwood had ignored quotes which Mrs King had obtained for pointing and external decoration; that several attempts to convene a meeting had been hampered by others trying to unsuccessfully submit quotes. Mrs King complained that this stalling, and blocking of essential maintenance, had put thousands of pounds on the price of each job.[19]On 8 November 2022 EGBM wrote to all the leaseholders to provide 2 quotes for works.[20]On the following day, the Applicant wrote to all parties to indicate that she had received 2 emails very late the previous night, from Mr Beale and Ms Burwood, advising that they no longer wished for EGBM to manage the building, but instead wanted a firm called Appointmoor to take over with immediate effect. The e-mail went on to state that EGBM intended to continue its contract, not only until the end of January 2023 on behalf of all freeholders and leaseholders, but also past that point, until all parties were in agreement as to the manager who would take over. The Applicant added that it would be very unprofessional of her to walk away from the building with immediate effect, and the contract does not allow her to do so. She added that she cared a lot about the building and about protecting all leaseholders’/ freeholders’ assets.[21]On 8 December 2022 Mrs King sent a s.22 Notice to the freeholders (i.e. all other lessees) complaining of the following: want of exterior redecorations, tiled and flat roof maintenance required, chimney stacks needing repair, fascia/barge boards and soffits requiring work, gutters and rainwater goods requiring attention, flashings requiring remediation, external facade render and vertical tiles requiring works, bathstone columns in want of repair, hard landscaping repairs needed, and garages in danger of collapse, with crumbling asbestos roofs.[22]The said Notice alleged that the landlord was in breach of obligations owed to the tenant under the lease, and that other circumstances existed which made it just and convenient to appoint a manager. Schedule 3 of the Notice alleged that clause 4(3) of the Lease had been breached by the freeholders. As regards other circumstances which made appointment just and convenient, the Notice alleged that Mr Beale and Ms Burwood had totally dissociated themselves from all aspects of the maintenance and management of the Property by refusing to engage with the managing agents appointed. There was now an impasse, it was alleged.[23]Mrs Donovan Buck’s response to the Notice was to agree with what Mrs King said. She considered that EGBM had acted quickly to engage a chartered surveyor, but the 2 of the leaseholders (namely Mr Beale and Ms Burwood) had obstructed progress, by not engaging with the manager in a transparent way, by not attending meetings to discuss issues and make decisions with all other lessees, and by increasingly engaging in negative communications with both the agent and other leaseholders, thereby creating the impasse which Mrs King had identified. Mrs Donovan Buck wished to add to the list of complaints in the section 22 Notice the following: fire certification and entryphone equipment upgrade are both much needed.[24]On 26 December 2022 Mrs King made an application to the Tribunal for the appointment of a manager.[25]The Applicant alleges that on 20 December 2023, the Respondents were served with a notice of intention pursuant to stage 1 of consultation regulations made under section 20 of the 1985 Act.[26]The Applicant alleges that a number of invitations to tender were sent out, including to all those suggested by leaseholders. However, only 2 quotations were received - from MB Building limited, who provided a quotation of £96,130 and from RPD plastering limited who provided a quotation of £93,533.47.[27]O 24 January 2024, the Tribunal appointed the Applicant as Manager for 3 years. The full decision of the Tribunal may be read in decision CAM/ 00KF/LAM/2023/0001.[28]On 29 February 2024 it is alleged that the Respondents were served with a stage 2 section 20 notice.[29]A further notice of estimates was served on 22 March 2024, because the February one had missed out the Applicant’s management fee of 10%.[30]The Applicant thereafter sent out a further Stage 3 notice, confirming that she had entered into a contract with RPD Plastering Ltd, notwithstanding that RPD had provided the most competitive estimate.[31]It is alleged by the Applicant that each stage 1 notice was served by hand to each of the flats of the building, and also by hand to the last known residential address of Mr Beale, as permitted under the leases (which incorporate the provisions of section 196 of the law of Property Act 1925).[32]The section 20 works were commenced in May 2024 and completed in August 2024. The total cost of the works reached £102,886.82 inclusive of the Applicants 10% management fee, as permitted under the order.[33]The Applicant sent demands to the leaseholders dated 22 April 2024. The Respondents have failed to make payment.[34]It is alleged that the works were only able to proceed in May 2024 because of a loan by Mr and Mrs King to the Applicant.[35]In the application for appointment of manager, Mr Beale and Ms Burwood did not oppose the appointment of a manager, but did not consider the Applicant to be a suitable appointee. Nevertheless, the Tribunal determined that it would make the appointment, the summary of its reasons being:(1) It was not in dispute that the grounds for making an order were made out.(2) It was just and convenient to make an order, because, firstly, the Property urgently required co-ordinated management of works, in particular to the garages and roof;(3) The Tribunal was impressed by the Applicant’s attitude and commitment to management of the Property. It might not be an easy task, admittedly, but the main reason for that had been the lack of co-operation of, and friction created by, Mr Beale and Ms Burwood;(4) The lack of experience as a court manager cannot be an impediment; otherwise no proposed manager could ever be appointed for the very first time;(5) With suitable co-operation from all leaseholders, the section 20 process could be progressed reasonably effectively;(6) Whilst the Applicant was (rightly) reluctant to go to law to enforce leaseholders’ obligations or progress the works, the Tribunal had faith that the Applicant would resort to all available remedies in the Tribunal or Court, albeit if (and only if) necessary.[36]Regrettably, the Applicant has needed to come back to the Tribunal to seek this s.27A determination, given that she is expressly authorised to carry out the major works pursuant to the management order.[37]The Applicant in particular points to the fact that:(1) Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the management order, the areas which are subject to section 20 major works have been inadequately managed in the past;(2) Pursuant to paragraph 6, the Applicant is authorised to collect monies to carry out repair and improvement works;(3) Pursuant to paragraphs 17 to 19, the Applicant may bring tribunal proceedings including in respect of arrears of service charge and may recover her costs from the service charge account;(4) Pursuant to paragraphs 23 and 24, the Applicant is to collect all service charges payable under the leases, and may make interim demands;(5) Pursuant to paragraph 25, the Applicant is entitled to recover her reasonable costs and fees of any professionals including solicitors and counsel;(6) Further, pursuant to paragraph 33 of the management order, the landlord (which in reality means all leaseholders) shall give all reasonable assistance and cooperation to the Applicant in pursuance of her functions rights duties and powers. Procedural history[38]The section 27A application was filed on 18 September 2024.[39]The Applicant filed her statement of case and witness statement on 22 April 2025.[40]On 12 May 2025 the Respondents filed a section 20C application and a witness statement from Mr Beale, along with their statement of case.[41]The matter came before the Tribunal in person in July 2025. The Tribunal conducted its inspection of the Property, but the hearing need to be adjourned because there was missing documentation (the MB and RPD estimates), evidence of dates of photographs, and most pertinently a workable Scott Schedule of disputed items (i.e. works allegedly not executed to a reasonable standard).[42]The parties thereafter duly complied with directions.[43]On 28 August 2025 the Applicant filed a section 20ZA application for dispensation from consultation requirements.[44]On 8 September 2025 the Tribunal heard the matter further over 1 day by CVP, a face to face hearing not being available. Mr Beale was assisted by a Ms Myhill. The Applicant was represented by counsel Mr Beetson. We are grateful to them both for their assistance. The parties’ respective positions[45]The Applicant contends that she has complied with section 20 of the 1985 Act; in the alternative, she seeks dispensation in relation to any breach of the consultation requirements which may have taken place.[46]The Applicant contends that the Tribunal has already determined that the works are required and therefore as a matter of law the service charges are reasonably incurred. The Applicant further contends that the sum demanded for the works is reasonable in amount; 2 contractor quotes were obtained and the Applicant went with the cheapest.[47]The Applicant further contends that the quotation relied on by the Respondents from L Hurst Construction is not realistic, given the scale of works required to the Property; and that this was provided after the consultation period ended in any event.[48]The Respondents have raised a number of issues which require determination:(1) Consultation: (a) That service of the stage 1 notice on Mr Beale was invalid; (b) That no estimate was supplied at Stage 2 from either MB or RPD;(2) Works were not carried out to a reasonable standard and/or were unreasonable in amount. Issue 1: Consultation (a) Service of the stage 1 notice on Mr Beale[49]The Applicant’s primary case is that the stage 1 notice of 20 December 2023 was addressed to Mr Beale at his flat (bundle pages 69-71) and served by hand to his flat, and also at 18 Drake Rd, being the last known address of Mr Beale. The lease allows service in accordance with s.196 of the Law of Property Act 1925: see clause 4(5) on page 12 of the lease (bundle, p.395). Accordingly, it is said that service was effective because the notice was “left at the last-known place of abode … of the lessee” (section 196(2)).[50]The Applicant’s secondary case was that it was posted to the flat and she relies on the envelopes dated 22 December 2023 (169).[51]The Applicant’s tertiary case was that the notice was emailed to Mr Beale.[52]The Applicant also contended the Tribunal had found the stage 1 notice had been served in its decision concerning the appointment of the Applicant as manager.[53]Mr Beales’s case was that he did not see the stage 1 notice until 11 January 2024, when he was shown it by Ms Burwood. The consultation period, as per the notice, ended on 19 January 2024. A posted notice stamped by the Post Office on 22 December 2023 would not have given him 30 days, the statutory minimum. He denies any letter was hand-delivered to 18 Drake Road.[54]The Tribunal determines as follows:[55]The recording of the service of the stage 1 notice in the decision appointing the Applicant as manager was not essential to the Tribunal’s decision (i.e. whether it was just and convenient to appoint a manager). We are not bound to follow that decision as regards the facts.[56]We agree that we cannot be satisfied the notice was emailed on balance of probability, because we have not seen the email(s); and Mr Beale points in his evidence to problems with opening of emails (statement, paragraph 12 on page 165).[57]The real issue for the Tribunal boils down to a classic determination of fact - whether the notice was hand delivered to 18 Drake Rd on 20 December 2023, or not.[58]In paragraph 8 of her witness statement for the dispensation application the Applicant states that, “On 20 December 2023 this notice was delivered by post, by email and by hand delivery to flat 1 and 18 Drake Rd.” However, in evidence at the second hearing, the Applicant became distressed and unsure of her position, on being asked by the Tribunal precisely how and where the notice was sent or delivered.[59]Notwithstanding the above, we prefer the evidence of the Applicant to Mr Beale, and find that the stage 1 notice was delivered by hand to Drake Road on 20 December 2023. Our reasons are as follows:(1) The Applicant is a court appointed manager, and understands her duties of candour to the Tribunal;(2) Her reaction at the second hearing was the result of pressure of questioning, and in our view does not undermine the evidence she had previously given in paragraph 26 of the statement of case (bundle. p.26) and in her dispensation witness statement at paragraph 8, which were more contemporaneous to the events in question;(3) In oral questioning, she volunteered the information that Mr King had accompanied her when she went to deliver the notice to 18 Drake Rd; this was something the Tribunal finds has a ring of truth about it, rather being than an on-the-spot attempted exculpatory statement;(4) Mr Beale does not appear to have raised an issue of non-service in the appointment of manager proceedings;(5) Mr Beale, having received the notice allegedly on 11 January 2024, made no complaint about late service at that stage. The first written complaint of non-service was dated 18 March 2024, and even then, his allegation was simply that the notice had not been received by post (bundle, page 98);(6) The Tribunal considers it inherently unlikely that Ms Burwood and Mr Beale would not have discussed the Stage 1 notice shortly after it was admittedly received by her in December 2023, given their relationship. (b) No estimate was supplied at Stage 2 from either MB or RPD;[60]The Applicant’s case is that she approached several contractors, including those nominated by leaseholders- by email both Darby Builders (nominated by flat 3) and EG Lawrence (nominated by flat 1); and by telephone RJ Ellis (nominated by flat 4).[61]However all the above builders declined to quote for the works, which we accept.[62]An email from Mr Darby dated 1 March 2024 exhibited to the Applicant’s dispensation statement indicates he was simply too busy to do the job.[63]The Applicant therefore states that the only estimates she received were from “MB” and “RPD”.[64]The Applicant explains that she took the estimates and transcribed the figures into a single table, which she attached to the Stage 2 notice. She thought that doing this would be easier for the leaseholders to compare figures, rather than attach the original estimates.[65]Regrettably, in her dispensation statement the Applicant does not exhibit either the MB estimate or the RPD estimate, only the later RPD invoice dated 17 April 2024.[66]The Respondents contend that there was no estimate or tender supplied at Stage 2. Further, there were deliberate attempts to discourage the nominated contractors from quoting - with comments from Mr. King, joint leaseholder a flat 2, being conveyed to the builders to put them off.[67]Mr Beale doubted that MB Building Ltd existed, because he could not trace them.[68]The Applicant responded that Mr Beale does know who MB Building Ltd is because their contractor fitted a door closer to the building when he was present and asked what the contractor was doing there.[69]Moreover, her door has always been open to the Respondents to come and see the estimates, as the notice dated 22 March 2024 invited, at its para 4.[70]The Applicant denied that MB knew of RPD’s figures in its quotation, and vice versa. Indeed, she contended that, to the contrary, L Hurst (Mr Beale’s nomination) knew of MB’s/RPD’s quotes, as Ms Donovan Buck had seen Mr Hurst with the same, and believed him to be attempting to undercut the estimates already supplied.[71]The Tribunal determines that the Applicant has complied with Schedule 4 Part 2 to the Service Charges (Consultation etc)(England) Regs 2003, for the following reasons:(1) We accept the Applicant’s evidence that she did “try to obtain an estimate” from each of the nominated contractors, in compliance with para 11(3) of the Regs;(2) The Applicant did obtain estimates from MB (whom we accept do exist) and from RPD, in compliance with para 11(5) of the Regs;(3) The Applicant did supply a “paragraph (b)” statement setting out, as regards at least two of the estimates, the amount specified in the estimate as the estimated cost of the proposed works. We determine there is no obligation under para 11(5)(b)(i) of the Regs to provide the estimates themselves, only the amounts;(4) The Applicant did make the estimates available for inspection at a specified address at reasonable hours, in compliance with para 11(5)(c)and (9)-(10)(a);(5) We do not find that any contractor was dissuaded from tendering for the work. Issue 2: Standard of works/ reasonableness of amount Chimney Stacks[72]The Respondents do not contend that any of the matters in the Scott Schedule were unnecessary. They accept that a cost should have been incurred. Their argument is rather that works were not done to a reasonable standard and in any event were not reasonable in amount.[73]The Respondents contended that no evidence had been submitted by the Applicant that chimney work had been carried out, save for 1 photograph of a cleaned stack - which merited a charge of £50 (for 2 hours of jet washing); that there was no evidence of repointing or brick replacements; and their own photographs (such as on p.289, 291 and 337 of the bundle) evidenced that areas of chimney had not been cleaned (as shown by the light and dark areas); and that there were areas which were not repointed at all.[74]The Applicant contended that the presence of patchwork of colours rather shows that areas of mortar had in fact been renewed; and the Respondents had had an opportunity instruct a surveyor to make good their points, but did not do so; and the Respondents relied on photos of the chimneys before the works had even been signed off.[75]The Applicant contended that the photographs on p.405 dated 7 June 2024 and 9 August 2024 were representative of the state before and after of all stacks. She had gone up the scaffold, and all leaseholders were offered the opportunity to go up on the roof, but Mr Beale did not take this offer up. Mr King, by contrast, did.[76]When asked about the split between lead flashing and pointing, the Applicant answered 75% pointing and lead 25%. The lead repairs were part of unseen roof works, and the contingencies were used in respect of this costing.[77]Contingencies were also used because temporary roof repairs were required. The Applicant gave evidence that the whole of the roof requires replacing in 5-10 years, and temporary works included felt replacement underneath tiles, and a repair to a ridge of tiles (some of which were replaced and others reset).[78]Having weighed the evidence, the Tribunal determines that the chimney works were executed to a reasonable standard and the costing of £8366.97 plus contingency of £1000 was reasonable in amount. Our reasoning is as follows:[79]There are 6 stacks (para 12.01 of Schedule of Works), we find, giving an average costing of £1500 per stack.[80]We cannot see from the quality of the Respondents’ photographs in the bundle that RPD has missed areas of pointing, or repaired areas poorly. On balance of probability, we are prepared to draw the inference that the Applicant’s photo of the stack on page 405 is representative of the state of all stacks. To find otherwise would be to determine that the standard of works across all stacks differed. The work done was accordingly reasonable in standard, and aesthetics of matching bricks or mortar (so far as relevant) are less important than weather tightness and structural integrity, we find.[81]As for reasonableness of amount, the RPD quote is comparable to MB’s (c. £8900). It is L Hurst’s quotation which is out on a limb. We therefore find the sum charged by the Applicant to be reasonable in amount.[82]As for the provisional sums, we consider these were used reasonably, given the explanation of the need for temporary repairs. Render[83]The Respondents pointed to photographs in the bundle on pages 222-223-227, 233-235 and 237-242. They agreed such areas were included on the Scott Schedule, because it refers to crack repairs. However other areas repaired (as revealed in pages 228 to 232 and 243-245, for example) are not expressly on the Schedule, they contend, and should be discounted.[84]The Respondents therefore disputed that 50 linear metres of render cracking existed; there were only 9-10 cracks of less than 1000 millimetres repaired, for which a reasonable timescale & costing would be 20 hours at £35 per hour, plus materials.[85]The Respondents based £35 per hour on a contention that £280 per day was a reasonable costing for a general plasterer (a day rate which the Applicant reluctantly agreed in oral evidence).[86]The Applicant responded that these works were carried out by a render specialist, not a general plasterer; therefore an hourly rate was not appropriate, because this was a fixed cost. Also approximately 45 square metres of cutting back and re-application of render was needed on the rear extension alone.[87]As for paragraph 16.1.3 on the Schedule of Works (allowance for cabling to be neatly clipped to the external walls using the appropriate fixings), the Respondents contended there were defective areas on the north elevation, and reminded the Tribunal of the loose cable in the passage observable during the inspection.[88]The Applicant stated that she did not recall seeing any cable hanging at the time she signed off the works. She indicated she could call the contractors back out, and ask them to fix it.[89]The Tribunal determines as follows:[90]The exterior of the building was rendered to a reasonable standard. We noted on inspection that there have been many repairs over what we expect was many decades, and the render finish was unlikely to have been in a consistent state before the works were executed, but rather a hotch-potch of patch repairs. We saw no cracking evident on inspection, and we considered the structural integrity reasonably good.[91]We do not consider the Applicant should be held in a straitjacket as regards the wording of the Schedule of Works; if repair was needed to the render notwithstanding there was no crack per se, that was a reasonable decision. That is clear enough from Project’s April 2022 email.[92]The hanging cable was a minor matter, we find; and it was unclear when and how it occurred. We are unable to find the contractor failed to execute works to a reasonable standard, on balance of probability.[93]As for the amount, we prefer the Applicant’s evidence. A sum of £500 to refix cables does not appear unreasonable.[94]As for the render, we note that MBs quotation was £20,680, higher than RPD’s £17380. L Hurst’s quotation was far too law in comparison. We therefore consider the amount charged by the Applicant to have been reasonable in amount. Bathstone columns[95]The Respondents’ case was that the repairs to the 2 bathstone pads (the columns being timber) were not carried out fully; and subsequently further damage was caused during decoration works, most likely by the scaffolders when striking the scaffolds. A reasonable cost would be £650 instead of £5536. At the inspection, the Respondents complained of the lack of application of stone sealer before decoration.[96]The Applicant contended these pads were completely stripped filled and repaired, as shown by the photographs on the page 252 and 253. She did not have a reason for the chip; she had carried out a post works inspection and perhaps had missed it, but certainly does not recall seeing it. A post inspection report with photographs was undertaken, the Applicant said, but that was not in the bundle. She indicated the tribunal that she would be “100% happy” to contact the company and see if they could repair it.[97]The Tribunal does not agree this was a minor chip, given the overall cost of the repairs and the overall aesthetics of the same - the photographs do reveal that a corner of a bathstone pad has been chipped off at some point after repair. A comparison of photos on p.254 and 311 reveals this.[98]The works ought not to have been signed off in that condition. The Respondents had no alternative costing for a repair, but given the £2750 charged for each pad, doing our best, we would disallow £300 from the total sum. Hard landscaping[99]The Respondents contend that there are still areas of defective mortar in the low level walls, as evidenced when a section was pulled out by Mr Beale during the Tribunal’s inspection. They accept that the repair to the brick semi dome under the main entrance steps was professionally carried out, and correct lime mortar was used.[100]The Respondents contend that excellent repair to the arch means £1400 only should be allowed for this area (see photos on pages 310 and 407 by way of illustration). This is based on 2.5 days work plus £150 materials.[101]They agree £170 for cleaning the brickwork to the porchway and steps (based on 3 hours plus materials), but dispute the standard of works /concrete repairs and replacements for tiles to front steps, because a lip was left and the tiles do not match in colour. Mr Beale accepted he did not have photos showing the state of the areas before works commenced. He accepted the lip area had been “close to” properly repaired, but was not.[102]Mr Beale also said he had a stock of floor tiles and if the contractor had contacted him, he would have sold them.[103]The Respondents did not challenge the workmanship concerning refixing and aligning the front tiles to front steps.[104]The Respondents contended that mortar was used containing too much cement thereby risking water getting behind, whereas lime mortar would be breathable.[105]The Applicant once again contends a specialist was employed to do the work; the original tiles outside the building were quarry tiles no longer in production, due to the age of the Property; but she did not recall any email offer made by Mr Beale to her to supply some replacement tiles, and she would not have turned down an opportunity to inspect them. She added that no approach was made directly by Mr Beale to the main contractor, who instead undertook thorough research and sourced multiple samples to ensure a suitable colour size and dimension. The tiles were also chosen for their longevity.[106]The Applicants seek £6400 for all these works.[107]The Tribunal notes that the brickwork already contained a patchwork of hard mortar and soft mortar. This is clear from pages 406, 408 and 410 of the bundle (photos dated 6 March 2023). We find that, notwithstanding any use of hard cement, the work was done to a reasonable standard. The fact that Mr Beale was able to extract a small section of mortar from the wall on the inspection is not evidence that, 12 months or so previously, the work had not been done to a reasonable standard. If there are water penetration issues in the future, the Respondents will be able to make their case at that point. However, they have no evidence from a builder or surveyor that such problems are likely (or even a risk) in the future.[108]As for the new tiles, some are clearly a darker red (page 407 of bundle). The Respondents did not produce any email evidencing an offer of replacement tiles. The Applicant could not remember such an email. Mr Beale did not approach the contractor directly. The lack of cogent evidence leads us to find that the Applicant acted reasonably in asking the contractors to match the tiles. There is no complaint about the integrity of the tiles. We therefore find that the repairs were reasonable in standard.[109]We did not see any unreasonable lip on the concrete steps on inspection. There is no photograph of the same. Mr Beale believes it may become a potential rainwater trap. Again, if there are water penetration issues in the future, the Respondents will be able to make their case at that point. However, they have no evidence from a builder or surveyor that such problems are likely (or even a risk) in the future. We therefore find that the repairs were reasonable in standard.[110]As for amount, MB did not quote for this element of work. L Hurst state that “it is not clear from the schedule what these jobs entail or their purpose. A contingency of 1000 is included to cover these sections.” Hence their total of £4250.[111]In the Tribunal’s determination, the difference between L Hurst’s quotation and that of RPD is insignificant, and the Applicant does not have to go with the cheapest amount: Forcelux v Sweetman [2001] 2 EGLR 173. We therefore find the sum of £6400 to be reasonable in amount. Decoration[112]The Scott Schedule reads at 20.1- 20.3: “20.1 Fully prepare and decorate all the existing previously decorated surfaces. Below clauses are to include filling all cracks, scraping away chipped paint and leaving surfaces ready for decoration" “20.2 For all previously decorated timber, but not limited [to] facias soffits barge boards and timber boards, allowed to prepare surfaces and lightly sand down and apply 1X coat of primer and 2X coats of Dulux trade weathershield gloss paint in the colour to be agreed by the CA.” “20.3 For all previously decorated masonry including but not limited to external rendered walls and porch columns, allow to prepare surfaces strictly in accordance with manufacturers recommendations and allow to decorate with x2nr coats of Dulux trade weathershield smooth masonry paint. Colour to match existing.”[113]The first two paragraphs above are priced by the Applicant at only £2000 and the third paragraph at £14,188.75.[114]In relation to the first 2 paragraphs, the Respondents contend that the timber preparation was either poor or not prepared at all, as evidenced by photos 305-309, dating from either 28 July 2024 or 10 August 2024; and that all of the exterior timber should have been decorated, not just certain areas. By way of main illustration, the Respondents argue that the frames of the windows should have been painted. Instead only the cills were.[115]The Respondents contend that a maximum 4 days per coat, plus Dulux weathershield masonry paint of 150 litres at £3.60 per litre, was needed. This would cost only £2240. Mr Beale said the paint could be sprayed, but accepted the windows would need to be covered if that was done.[116]The Applicant’s Scott Schedule contends that all soffits and fascias were fully replaced as part of the works; this was carried out by skilled professionals over a period of 2 weeks rather than 4 days. The project involved exterior painting at height on scaffolding applied to a large period home, which significantly increases the time and complexity involved.[117]The Applicant contended that notwithstanding the wording of para 20.1 and 20.2, the window frames were never included in the Schedule of Works because the same are demised to the leaseholders, and the contractors were verbally informed that windows were not to be painted. The Applicant pointed to the Project email of 12 April 2022, which did not reference windows.[118]The Applicant contended that all areas intended to be done were prepared and decorated to a reasonable standard, even on the Respondent’s photos. The Applicant accepted that not all fascias and soffits were replaced. The Applicant emphasised that several workmen were required over the 2 week period, some days 2 persons, some days 3.[119]The Tribunal accepts that the window frames were not included in the quotation, and the Schedule of Works was incorrect in saying all timber was to be redecorated. The Project Manager’s email does not expressly reference windows. We accept the leaseholders understood the windows were demised to them (which is another reason they were not included) although we have to say the leases are not particularly clear on that issue, and we did not hear full argument on it.[120]As for the quality of preparation, we find that £2000 did not merit an extensive preparation; and what was done was value for money overall, even if it could have been better.[121]The Tribunal determines that scaffolding was required for work at height, and that 4 days (perhaps using rollers) was not a realistic timescale for redecoration of cills and render. The building is large and historic. The 2 weeks said to be taken would appear to us to be generous, but we cannot find the works were unreasonable in length.[122]We find it was reasonable to have a fixed cost, given the size of the job, and not a day rate.[123]We note MB Building’s quotation came in a little higher than RPD’s. We note that L Hurst was also higher for items 20.1 to 20.3, but that may be because they included all windows. The Tribunal expects the first 2 quotations would have been much higher had the window frames been included.[124]Once again, the fact that L Hurst may have been cheaper is not determinative. The quotation of MB Building, which we accept was independent of RPD’s, reveals that RPD’s figure was not outside a reasonable range. Scaffold and other matters[125]The Respondents seek a credit of their proportion of the £19500 for the scaffolding, because (they contend) much of the work needs to be either redone or completed; the roof is still defective (they say there is a continuing leak) and the windows still need to be painted.[126]The Applicant contended that it would not be correct as a matter of law to give such a credit; much of the work which the scaffold needed has been done; and the window frames were not included.[127]The Applicant pointed to the difference in the 2 estimates being only £4000 or so. The Respondent pointed to the L Hurst quotation as being from a reputable company and a better estimate.[128]The Tribunal does not credit the proportion of the scaffolding, given its findings in relation to the items at height which were the subject of challenge. We have already found these were reasonable in standard, and reasonable in amount. S.20ZA application for dispensation[129]Having found that the Applicant has complied with consultation requirements, we do not need to consider the Applicant’s application for dispensation. Section 20C/para 5A application[130]The Applicant being the substantial winner in these proceedings, we do not consider that an order should be made in the Respondents’ favour. Nor do we criticise the Applicant for alleged failure to engage in ADR, given the discrepancy in the parties’ respective costings - the Respondents’ alternative figures were on the whole unrealistic. Moreover, we consider that there is much to be said for the stance that the Respondents should have paid the demand, and then challenged the reasonableness and payability of the same. Their conduct has forced the s.27A application to be made by the Applicant, as well as the s.20ZA application (as a belt and braces approach).[131]For similar reasons to the above, we award the Applicant the s.27A application fee and hearing fee, and also the fee for issuing the s.20ZA application (if any was made). The total is payable by the Respondents to the Applicant within 35 days of the date of this decision. Judge: S J Evans Date: 15/10/25 ANNEX – RIGHTS OF APPEAL[1]If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) then a written Application for permission must be made to the First-Tier at the Regional Office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The Application for permission to appeal must arrive at the Regional Office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the Application.[3]If the Application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such Application must include a request to an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the Application for permission to appeal to proceed despite not being within the time limit.[4]The Application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the Property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the Application is seeking. Annex 1: s.196 Law of Property Act 1925 196 Regulations respecting notices. (1)Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing. (2)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor shall be sufficient, although only addressed to the lessee or mortgagor by that designation, without his name, or generally to the persons interested, without any name, and notwithstanding that any person to be affected by the notice is absent, under disability, unborn, or unascertained. (3)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine. (4)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned by the postal operator (within the meaning of Part 3 of the Postal Services Act 2011) concerned undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered. (5)The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting Property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears. (6)This section does not apply to notices served in proceedings in the court. --- decision_2.pdf --- 1 P FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case reference : CAM/00KF/LSC/2025/0608 Property : Mont Dol, 58 Chalkwell Ave, Westcliff- on-Sea, Essex SS) 8NN. Applicant : Kelly Ivory Empegliazzo Respondent : Mr Edward Beale, Ms Deborah Burwood Type of application : Application for permission to appeal Tribunal : Judge Stephen Evans Date of original decision : 15 October 2025 Date of PTA decision : 12 February 2026 DECISION © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2 DECISION[1]The Tribunal determines that it will not conduct a review pursuant to rules 53 and 55 of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 because it is not satisfied that a ground of appeal is likely to be successful.[2]The Tribunal further determines that permission to appeal be refused, as there are no reasonable prospects of success and no other reason why an appeal should be heard.[3]In accordance with section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and rule 21 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010, the applicant may make further application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Such application must be made in writing and received by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) no later than 14 days after the date on which the First-tier Tribunal sent notice of this refusal to the party applying for permission to appeal.[4]The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) may be contacted at: 5th Floor, Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL (tel: 020 7612 9710); or by email: lands@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk . REASONS[1]By application dated 6 November 2025, the Respondents seek permission to appeal the Tribunal’s decision of 15 October 2025 relating to determination of service charges.[2]The Tribunal apologises for the delay in issuing this decision. The Grounds were not referred to the Tribunal as early as they might have been.[3]The Grounds are discursive and prolix and do not set out with precision why it is alleged the Tribunal erred in its decision. Most of the Grounds of Appeal are not grounds in the proper sense, but an attempt by the Respondents to re- litigate the case. That, without more, is impermissible.[4]Many of the challenges to the decision are misguided, since the Tribunal was merely recording what the respective parties’ position was, rather than being part of its findings, which were made thereafter[5]As regards specific paragraphs in the Respondents’ Statement of Appeal which do tend to assert that the Tribunal erred, the Tribunal determines there are no 3 real prospects of success nor other reason to grant permission to appeal, for the following reasons:  Paragraph 59(3): the Tribunal did not find Mr King was resident. The Tribunal believed the Applicant when she volunteered the fact that Mr King had accompanied her when service notices. The Tribunal preferred the Applicant’s evidence on the issue of service.  Paragraph 77-80: the Respondents had the opportunity to call any witnesses, including any tenant at the hearing, but did not do so. The Tribunal cannot take into consideration now the tenant’s alleged evidence.  Similarly, the Tribunal could not consider events dated 22 October 2025, since they occurred 10 days after its decision was dated.  Paragraph 91: the evidence before the Tribunal was that render was spalled in some areas, and was not limited to cracking.  Paragraphs 95 and 107: the parties were clearly informed at the outset of the inspection that evidence would not be taken from the parties during the inspection.  Paragraph 108: the Respondents’ reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is unparticularised and opaque.  Paragraph 111: the Tribunal did not misunderstand or misapply the law.  Paragraph 115: the Respondents are now prepared accept that 10 working days was not unreasonable. As such, there is no realistic challenge to the Tribunal’s findings. The Tribunal’s reference to scaffolding was to the extra time likely to be taken to ascend/descend when working, and to take extra care when working at height. The Property is historic, and accordingly less easy to redecorate than a newer building.  Paragraph 117: the Tribunal made no finding that there was a Project Manager.  Paragraphs 129 and 131: no separate grounds are alleged. 4  Paragraph 130: no without prejudice offer has been disclosed to the Tribunal, still less any offer which the Respondents have bettered.  Conclusions paragraph: the Tribunal weighed the evidence before it. Both parties had the opportunity to seek permission to call expert evidence on standard of works, but failed to do so. Judge: S J Evans Date: 12/2/26