Lansdowne Manor, 55 Lansdowne Road, Bournemouth BH1 1RN CHI/00HN/LCP/2024/0002
DECISION
[9]The Tribunal accepts that it is reasonable for a Grade A fee earner (namely, Lorraine Scott) to undertake the relevant work in response to the claim, provided a Grade D (here, Millie Halewood) or the like is engaged where possible to reduce costs. That appears to have been done here, with sensible use of the different grades. Overall, Grade A incurred time being 1.8 hours and Grade D of 3.6 hours. Whilst their rates are compatible with the applicable HMCTS Guideline hourly rates (National 1).[10]Further, as to the detail of the costs, the narrative at paragraph 6 of the Applicant’s statement of case, the information in the solicitor’s invoice and the full breakdown in the N260 provided are of great assistance in understanding the time spent and in assessing each element of the costs billed. Thus, I note the attendances on client (party) totalling 0.9 hours, attendances on opponents at 0.8 hours, attendance on others at 1 hour and work on documents 1 hour Grade A and 1.7 hours Grade D (albeit recorded under Grade B). All of these time look eminently reasonable. As for the disbursements, given the returned to sender record from Royal Mail despite the counter-notice letters being correctly addressed, the additional courier cost also appears to be justified.[11]With regard to the solicitor’s costs claimed, therefore, considering the rates charged, time spent, the division between grades and the substantiation for the disbursements, I am satisfied that the sums charged and claimed were incurred and are reasonable.[12]As to the managing agents fees, I am satisfied that the work done falls outside the standard management fee and is work for which the agent was entitled to charge additional fees. Although no copy of the management agreement is provided, the invoice refers to the charge being levied in accordance with the same. Indeed, as pointed out by the Applicant, this is consistent with the RICS Service Charges and Residential Management Code and reflects standard practice.[13]Further, with regard to the amount claimed, I accept that the tasks described in the invoice were properly undertaken by the managing agents, that the times taken appear reasonable and that the hourly charge also is by no means unreasonable. I am satisfied accordingly that this was a reasonable sum incurred in consequence of the claim notice, together with the solicitors costs above.[14]By way of a check, stepping back and considering the total fee of £1,957.28 (£1,417.28 plus £540), this does not appear to be outside the norm for a landlord dealing with such a notice claiming the right to manage, investigating the matter and serving a counter-notice. Overall in my judgement the total charge is a reasonable one that satisfies the test under section 88(3).[15]In the light of the conclusions above, I consider it is also just and equitable to allow the Applicant’s application for reimbursement of the application fee. Conclusion and Order[16]In conclusion, having considered the detail of the costs claimed and for the reasons set out above:(1) The Tribunal determines under section 88(4) of the 2002 Act and duly orders that costs in the sum of £1,957.28 are payable by the Respondent to the Applicant within 14 days of this decision; and,(2) The Tribunal orders under rule 13(2) of the 2013 Rules that the Respondent shall also reimburse the application fee of £100 paid by the Applicant within 14 days of this decision. Name: Judge Paul Letman Date: 8 October 2024 Rights of Appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at rpsouthern@ejudiciary.net which has been dealing with the case. 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. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application 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 application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. 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. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).