Hannah DaviesApplicantLangney Road Management Company LimitedRespondent
Before
Tribunal Judge David Gethinn/a for the ApplicantDate 20 July 2026
DECISION
Summary of the decisions of the Tribunal(1) The Tribunal determines that the Applicant is liable to pay the sum of £925.08 in respect of the 2024/25 Actuals.(2) The Tribunal determines that the Applicant is liable to pay the sum of £1,209.23 in respect of the 2025/26 Estimates.(3) The Tribunal refuses to make an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“LTA 1985”) or paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 ("CLRA 2002") preventing the Respondent from recovering its costs of the Tribunal proceedings from the Applicant through the service charge or as an administration charge.(4) The Tribunal refuses to make an order regarding the Applicant’s fees of this application.(5) The Tribunal dismisses the Applicant’s application for costs under rule 13(1)(b) of The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013 (“the 2013 Rules”). The Proceedings[1]A paginated pdf bundle of 273 pages was provided by the Applicant. References in [ ] in this decision are to the pages taken from the Hearing Bundle unless otherwise specified.[2]The Applicant made an application for determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges for the years 2023 to 2025. The application was received on 20 August 2025.[3]The Applicant further sought orders pursuant to Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.[4]The application asks the Tribunal to determine whether various service charges demanded by the Respondent in the disputed years were reasonably incurred and are payable by the Applicant.[5]Directions were first given on 13 January 2026 explaining that although the grounds of application referred to the application being made on behalf of leaseholders of flats 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8, since only Hannah Davies of flat 6 had signed the statement of truth on the application form the Tribunal required a statement of truth from each leaseholder who wished to be a party to the application. In addition, if any of the other potential applicants wished to be represented by Ms Davies in these proceedings, then a written authority must be provided by those applicants authorising Ms Davies to do so.[6]The Directions listed a case management and dispute resolution hearing on 6 February 2026.[7]On 23 January 2026 a case management application was made by Mr Connors of Langney Road Management Company Limited, described as a management company which collects service charges on behalf of the freeholder requesting an extension for filing the position statement.[8]Further Directions were issued on 27 January 2026 extending the date for the position statements and for the listing of the case management and dispute resolution hearing (“CMDRH”) to remain on 6 February 2026.[9]The CMDRH took place remotely as directed and was attended by the Applicant. Mr de Almeida, director of Frontside Developments Ltd (“Frontside”), attended as did Mr Jamie Connors of Langley Road Management Company Limited (“LRMCL”).[10]At the hearing it was agreed that the correct Respondent should be LRMCL who are the Management Company under the lease. It was agreed to remove Frontside as a Respondent. Given written authority had not been provided at that time, only Ms Davies was named as Applicant.[11]Mr Connors explained that he is a director of the Respondent and that he also owns 4 flats across the 2 blocks making up the development. It is proposed that the freehold should be transferred from Frontside to the Respondent and that all leaseholders at the development should be members of the Respondent. Supposedly this is required under the terms of the contracts under which each leaseholder purchased their flats but that has yet to happen.[12]Mr Connors confirmed all documents being accounts, budgets and supporting invoices had been sent to the Applicant.[13]The Tribunal agreed dates with the parties. All were advised to take independent advice and encouraged to speak to each other to try and resolve the issues between them given the ongoing relationship they will have.[14]Written authority for Ms Davies to act as the Applicants’ representative was purportedly provided on 20 April 2026. Several of the names in that document did not precisely match the names provided in the Hearing Bundle and in the further documents referred to at paragraph 20 below.[15]No application has been made to add the other residents since the directions dated 6 February 2026, and so the Tribunal regards this application as being brought by the Applicant alone. That is particularly the case in the circumstances where the Applicant has subsequently requested that the matter be determined on the papers alone and the views of the other residents have not been sought and there is no evidence that they agree.[16]The Applicant was directed to submit the Hearing Bundle to the Respondent and the Tribunal by 5 May 2026. The Tribunal did not receive the bundle, and the application was struck out in accordance with the Directions of Regional Judge Whitney dated 13 May 2026.[17]The Applicant made a prompt application for reinstatement of the application on the basis there was evidence that she had sent the Hearing Bundle to the Tribunal on 4 May 2026 even if it had not been received. The application was reinstated in accordance with the Directions of Judge C Rai dated 18 May 2026.[18]The Applicant made an application on 8 June 2026 for the matter to be determined on the evidence provided as she would not be available in July prior to a move to Spain. Ms Davies only refers to herself as the Applicant and not as the Applicants’ representative in that application. That application was allowed by Regional Judge Whitney on 23 June 2026.[19]The Hearing Bundle is significantly defective. The Applicant failed to include any of the Directions referred to above nor, more importantly, a copy of the original application and appendices.[20]Given the Applicant is, or will shortly be out of the UK and will not be attending an oral hearing, it would not be proportionate to strike out the application and so the Tribunal has had consideration of the following documents omitted from the Hearing Bundle when making its determination:(a) Leasehold 3 form dated 20 August 2025 (22 pages);(b) Ground of application (3 pages);(c) Document with the file name “Court Bundle” (49 pages).[21]The Applicant holds a long lease of Flat 6 dated 2 January 2024 between(1) Frontside(2) the Respondent and(3) Ms Davies for a term of 125 years from and including 25 March 2023 and to and including 24 March 2148 (“the Lease”). A copy of the Lease was also provided with the application, but is included in the Hearing Bundle [8-50].[22]Having regard for the Respondent’s Statement of Case dated 2 February 2026 it is apparent that the Respondent has had sight of the application and appendices referred to above, albeit not until 22 January 2026. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent is not prejudiced by the Tribunal having consideration for the above documents that the Applicant omitted. The Background[23]No photographs of the Property in which the Applicants’ flats are located were provided. The Tribunal has used Google Streetview to view the exterior of the Property.[24]The Property is a modern purpose-built apartment block of brick construction comprising 8 flats over 4 floors on the site of a former public house and built in or before 2023; the two flats on the top floor have a cladded façade and are smaller than the units beneath which all appear to be of the same footprint. A second, separate block of the same design and build is situated at 127 Langley Road save for it has additional car parking on the ground floor. Both blocks make up the same development (“the Development”) and are referred to as Block A and Block B respectively.[25]According to the Lease plan [48, 50], Flats 1 and 2 are situated on the ground floor level and each has a private garden space. Flats 3 and 4 are at first floor level, and Flats 5 and 6 at second floor level, and each has a balcony. Flats 7 and 8 are at third floor level and each has a private roof terrace.[26]The freehold of the Property is held by Frontline but is expected to be transferred to the Respondent in due course.[27]We were not provided with leasehold titles of copies of leases for the other flats, but it is understood that each lease is on the same terms as the Lease.[28]Under the terms of the Lease, the Respondent as Management Company has responsibility for the maintenance, repair and renewal of the Property rather than Frontline. The Respondent incurs the costs of complying with the Management Company’s obligations under the terms of the Lease and the Applicants, in turn, pays a service charge to the Respondent.[29]The Applicant seeks a determination of the service charge for the years 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26. The Relevant Law – Service Charge and Administration Charges[30]In accordance with s.27A(3) LTA 1985: 27A Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction (1) An application may be made to the appropriate tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable.[31]A service charge is defined by s.18(1) LTA 1985 reads as follows: 18 Meaning of “service charge” and “relevant costs”. (2) In the following provisions of this Act “service charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent—(a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance improvements or insurance or the landlord’s costs of management, and(b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs.[32]Section 19 LTA 1985 provides that there is a limitation on service charges in that they must be reasonable: 19 Limitation of service charges: reasonableness.(1) Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period— (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.(2) Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise.[33]Section 20C LTA 1985 provides that there is a further limitation on service charges in that the tenant can apply for an order that the costs incurred, or to be incurred, of proceedings are not to be regarded as relevant costs: 20C Limitation of service charges: costs of proceedings.(1) A tenant may make an application for an order that all or any of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, by the landlord in connection with proceedings before a court residential property tribunal or leasehold valuation tribunal or the First-tier Tribunal, or the Upper Tribunal, or in connection with arbitration proceedings, are not to be regarded as relevant costs to be taken into account in determining the amount of any service charge payable by the tenant or any other person or persons specified in the application.(2) …(3) The court or tribunal to which the application is made may make such order on the application as it considers just and equitable in the circumstances.[34]Paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to CLRA 2002 provides that the tenant can apply for a similar order that reducing or extinguishing their liability to pay a particular administration charge in respect of litigation costs: 5A Limitation of administration charges: costs of proceedings(1) A tenant of a dwelling in England may apply to the relevant court or tribunal for an order reducing or extinguishing the tenant's liability to pay a particular administration charge in respect of litigation costs.(2) The relevant court or tribunal may make whatever order on the application it considers to be just and equitable…[35]Rule 13(1)(b) of the 2013 Rules provides: 13.—(1) The Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only— … (b) if a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings in—(i) an agricultural land and drainage case,(ii) a residential property case, or(iii) a leasehold case; or…[36]The three stages that the tribunal need to go through when considering whether a costs order should be made under rule 13 are set out in Willow Court Management Company Ltd v Mrs Ratna Alexander [2016] UKUT (LC) (“Willow Court”) at paragraphs 27 and 28 which are set are below. 27 When considering the rule 13(1)(b) power attention should first focus on the permissive and conditional language in which it is framed: “the Tribunal may make an order in respect of costs only … if a person has acted unreasonably….” We make two obvious points: first, that unreasonable conduct is an essential pre-condition of the power to order costs under the rule; secondly, once the existence of the power has been established its exercise is a matter for the discretion of the tribunal. With these points in mind we suggest that a systematic or sequential approach to applications made under the rule should be adopted. 28 At the first stage the question is whether a person has acted unreasonably. A decision that the conduct of a party has been unreasonable does not involve an exercise of discretion but rather the application of an objective standard of conduct to the facts of the case. If there is no reasonable explanation for the conduct complained of, the behaviour will properly be adjudged to be unreasonable, and the threshold for the making of an order will have been crossed. A discretionary power is then engaged and the decision maker moves to a second stage of the inquiry. At that second stage it is essential for the tribunal to consider whether, in the light of the unreasonable conduct it has found to have been demonstrated, it ought to make an order for costs or not; it is only if it decides that it should make an order that a third stage is reached when the question is what the terms of that order should be.[37]What does it mean for a person to have acted unreasonably? In Lea & Ors v GP Ilfracombe Management Company Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1241, the Court of Appeal approved and followed the decisions in Ridehalgh v Horsefield & Anr [1994] Ch 205 (“Ridehalgh”) and Willow Court.[38]Firstly, neither Ridehalgh nor Willow Court decided that unreasonable conduct must involve vexatious conduct or harassment. Secondly, that deciding whether or not there has been unreasonable conduct, and if so, whether an adverse order for costs should be made, is a fact-specific exercise. Although sufficient guidance in respect of rule 13(1)(b) had been set out in Ridehalgh and Willow Court, a good practical rule is for the Tribunal to ask: would a reasonable person acting reasonably have acted in this way? Is there a reasonable explanation for the conduct in issue? The Issues[39]The Tribunal has identified the relevant issues for determination are whether the following service charges are reasonable:(a) no demand for 2023/24 was provided and so we make no determination for this period;(b) 2024/25 Actuals dated 15 December 2025 in the sum of £925.08 [172-180]; and(c) 2025/26 Estimates dated 5 January 2026 in the sum of £1,209.23 [181-183].[40]The Applicant also seeks orders under s.20C LTA 1985 and para. 5A, Sch. 11 CLRA 2002 as well as an order under rule 13 of the 2013 Rules.[41]Having considered the Hearing Bundle, copies of the omitted Directions and the additional documents referred to at paragraph 20 above, the Tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as follows. The Hearing[42]The matter was determined by way of a paper hearing which took place on 10 July 2026. The Applicants’ Case[43]The Applicant’s case taken from her application dated 20 August 2025, annexed Grounds of Application and “Court Bundle” [admitted evidence], as well as the Applicant’s Supplementary Statement of Case dated 1 March 2026 [190-196] is that the service charges demanded by the Respondent are not payable in the absence of proper supporting accounts and receipts and should be struck out or reduced where unreasonable, unsupported or not in accordance with the lease.[44]More specifically, the Applicant had raised the following concerns which the Respondent addressed in its letters dated 30 May 2025 [24-30 of the “Court Bundle” document] and 22 July 2025 [32-36 of the “Court Bundle” document]:(a) lighting in the hallways is left on during the day which is not cost effective;(b) some light pillars in the car park are not properly installed with visibly exposed wires which are live;(c) the monthly frequency of cleaning of the common parts is insufficient, and the hallway is often dirty;(d) grounds maintenance has not been undertaken, and landscaping has not been undertaken;(e) bulk waste removal following the completion of the construction work has not been undertaken;(f) the front door entry system was broken for at least two months;(g) the cost of communal messages and media is not reasonable given the number of communications sent;(h) querying the work done in respect of fire risk assessment;(i) evidence of costs incurred in respect of communal lift servicing and maintenance and whether the reserve fund was applied towards this;(j) there is an exposed waste pipe and drains are not maintained and overgrown with weeds;(k) cleaning of windows has not been carried out;(l) querying the costs of pest provision;(m) querying the costs of communal repairs noting that neither the front entrance door or the rear fire exit close properly allowing non-residents to enter the Property;(n) requesting copies of audited accounts;(o) requesting a copy of the policy number;(p) requesting evidence of use of the reserve fund;(q) management fee is not reasonable given the standard of the Respondent’s management of the Property.[45]The above matters fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and we can make a determination. The Applicant also sought a remedy for the Respondent’s alleged breach of ss.21-22 LTA 1985 and requested the Tribunal direct the Respondent to disclose documentation. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in regard to these matters and makes no findings.[46]In the Applicant’s Supplementary Statement of Case dated 1 March 2026 [190-196], the Applicant further disputes:(a) the apportionment used for calculating her contribution to the service charge;(b) the recoverability of the cost of replacement glass in Block B;(c) the 2025/26 service charge demand was served without the accompanying statutory Summary of Rights and Obligations;(d) the 2024/25 Accounts [148-152] lack transparency;(e) five cleaning invoices were disclosed between March to July 2024 totalling £1,240.00;(f) the “invoice bundle” contains separate electricity invoices for Block A (125 Langney Road) and Block B (127 Langney Road);(g) certain expenditure is only evidenced by photographs of receipts rather than formal invoices;(h) several, unspecified, amounts appear disproportionate to the scope of service provided;(i) that the invoices exceed the demanded sums for Cleaning and Fire Risk Assessment for 2024/25 or that the apportionment does not reconcile with the floor area for Accountancy, Electricity & Lighting, Lift Maintenance and Messages/Admin. In each case, the invoices exceed the sums demanded from the residents of Block A as provided for in Table 6 [194];(j) there is a lack of reconciliation of certain costs or lack of evidence of apportionment between Block A and Block B as provided for in Table 7 [194-195].[47]With regards to the orders sought under s.20C LTA 1985 and para.5A, Sch.11 CLRA 2002, the Applicant seeks these orders but makes no submissions as to why they should be made.[48]The Applicant submits that the Respondent’s conduct has been unreasonable, without specifying how the Respondent’s conduct is unreasonable, and seeks an order under rule 13 of the 2013 Rules. The Respondent’s Case[49]The Respondent’s case taken from its Statement of Case dated 2 February 2026 [197-198] and its Supplementary Statement of Case dated 7 April 2026 [199-206] together with its evidence bundle [207-273], is that:(a) the apportionment is a two-stage process between Block A and Block B and then for those costs payable in Block A, between the 8 flats based on floor area of each flat. The Respondent is content to have Flats 1, 3 and 5 measured by an independent specialist to resolve the discrepancy of 66m2 used by the Respondent and 65m2 stated in the EPC certificates. Where items only apply to a certain block (e.g. a lift system is only present in Block A and the glass repair was in Block B), costs are wholly allocated to that block;(b) the 2025/26 Estimates have been re-issued with the statutory Summary of Rights and Obligations;(c) 11 Cleaning invoices were provided for March 2024 to March 2025 “clearly shown in the Applicants own Evidence bundle which shows 11 invoices” and no invoice exists at £248 per visit as alleged;(d) electricity invoices are allocated separately to Blocks A and B and so there is no cross-charging;(e) all material expenditure is supported by invoices;(f) the Applicant’s analysis is based on a misunderstanding of apportionment;(g) the companies which hold the leases of Flats 5 and 7 in Block A and Flats 1 and 2 in Block B, of which Mr Connors is a director, have all paid the amounts demanded and exceed the sums paid by the other leaseholders including the Applicant;(h) that the Applicant has confused estimated service charges with actual expenditure evidenced by the invoices.[50]With regards to the orders sought under s.20C LTA 1985 and para.5A, Sch.11 CLRA 2002, the Respondent makes no submissions. With regards to the application for a rule 13 order, the Respondent makes no submissions. The Tribunal Decision[51]We preface our determination with the following comments.[52]The Applicant is a litigant-in-person. Nonetheless she has repeatedly failed to comply with directions, and the Hearing Bundle was significantly defective. Reference was made by both parties to a bundle of invoices, not included in the Hearing Bundle. It is not for the Tribunal to prepare the Applicant’s bundle for them.[53]Absent such evidence, it is not possible to make a finding that the Respondent has failed to evidence costs were incurred even if that disclosure was later than would have been advisable.[54]In any event, §5 of the Respondent’s Supplementary Statement of Case [202] states that 11 Cleaning invoices were provided whilst the Applicant alleges only 5 invoices were provided for the same period. Both Statements include a statement of truth. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr Connors.[55]The Tribunal did not have the opportunity to test the parties’ evidence, in light of that finding, and absent evidence otherwise, the Tribunal generally gave the Applicant’s evidence less weight than that of Mr Connor.[56]Turning to the actuals costs incurred for 2024/25 that are in dispute, the Tribunal comments as follows: Apportionment[57]Further to Clause 5 [20] and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 [31] to the Lease the Applicant has covenanted to pay the Service Charge which by clause 1.1 [17] is defined as a “fair and reasonable proportion determined by the Landlord, or until the handover date, the Management Company of the Service Costs”.[58]Whilst the EPCs for Flats 1, 3 and 5 state that the total floor area is 65m2 [54, 56 and 58] and not the same as that for Flats 2, 4 and 6, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Respondent’s apportionment is wrong and no evidence has been offered by the Applicant to show which is the correct floor area for the disputed flats.[59]We are also satisfied from the Respondent’s Supplementary Statement of Case that where costs have been incurred solely for the benefit of one block, those costs have not been charged to residents of the other block. Communal Electricity and Lighting[60]The Applicant did not provide photographic evidence of the hallway. The Tribunal cannot know how well lit the interior is during daylight hours or whether it would be unreasonable for the hallway to be lit during the day. The Respondent had invited the Applicant to make suggestions as to hours to light the hallway, to which the Applicant appears not to have responded, and the Respondent has considered installing movement sensitive switches but that would incur additional costs which the leaseholders would be liable to contribute towards.[61]The Tribunal finds that the sum of £170.55 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Communal Outdoor Lighting[62]The Respondent confirmed that the exposed wires were not live and were intended for EV charging and not lighting. In any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Communal Cleaning[63]The parties dispute the number of invoices provided but without sight of the ‘invoices bundle’ that was not placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal prefers Mr Connors’ evidence. The Applicant has not provided any evidence regarding the standard of cleaning. The Tribunal finds that the sum of £114.41 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Communal Grounds Maintenance[64]The Applicant had provided limited evidence of the estate grounds but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Communal Bulk Rubbish Removal[65]The Applicant had provided evidence of the bulk rubbish on the estate but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Door Entry System Management[66]The Applicant had complained that the front door entry system was broken and reported to the Respondent on 27 February 2025. A new door entry system had to be ordered leading to its replacement on 8 April 2025. The Respondent accepted that “delays are not ideal” [26 of the “Court Bundle” document]. We do not find that the Respondent has acted unreasonably in that contractors were instructed and delays were due to requiring a replacement part. The Tribunal finds that the sum of £2.56 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Communal Messages/Media[67]The Applicant has made a bare allegation as to the costs of communicating with residents without suggesting what a reasonable amount would be. The Respondent is entitled to know the case it is being asked to answer. Absent evidence that the costs are unreasonable, the Tribunal finds that the sum of £20.13 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Fire risk assessment[68]The Applicant has alleged that no Fire Risk Assessment works or services were undertaken during the period 2024/25. Without sight of the ‘invoices bundle’ that was not placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal prefers Mr Connors’ evidence that works and services were provided during this period, notably the FRA in May 2024 the existence of which the Applicant has not acknowledged. The Applicant has not provided any evidence regarding the standard of the Fire Risk Assessment. The Tribunal finds that the sum of £51.25 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Communal Lift Servicing/Maintenance and Repairs[69]The Applicant has made a bare allegation as to the costs of Lift Servicing/Maintenance and Repairs. Without sight of the ‘invoices bundle’ that was not placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal prefers Mr Connors’ evidence that there is an annual lift service maintenance contract in place. The Applicant has not provided any evidence regarding the standard of the maintenance of the lift. The Tribunal finds that the sum of £71.77 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Communal Water/Drainage maintenance[70]The Applicant had not provided evidence of the concerns raised but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Communal Window Cleaning Provision[71]The Applicant had submitted that window cleaning had not taken place but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Communal Pest Control Provision[72]The Applicant had queried what costs had been incurred during 2024/25 but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Communal Window Cleaning Provision[73]The Applicant had submitted that window cleaning had not taken place but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Communal Repairs Provision[74]The Applicant had submitted that repairs to the front entrance door and rear fire exit had not taken place but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. Accounting Fee[75]The Applicant had submitted that the 2024/25 Accounts lacked transparency. The accountant had prepared a report of factual findings and was conducted by a firm of chartered accountants. The Tribunal finds that the report was prepared to a reasonable standard. The Applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the cost for doing so was not reasonable. The Tribunal finds that the sum of £71.77 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Communal Building Insurance[76]The Applicant had requested a copy of the policy and confirmation of the policy number. The Respondent had replied that a copy of the policy and confirmation of the premium breakdown would be provided [26 of the “Court Bundle” document]. Without sight of the ‘invoices bundle’ that was not placed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal prefers Mr Connors’ evidence that building insurance was in place. The Applicant has not provided any evidence showing that the insurance premium was not reasonable.[77]The Tribunal finds that the sum of £302.06 is reasonable and that the Applicant is liable to pay this amount. Reserve Fund Provision[78]The Applicant had requested evidence of the use of the Reserve Fund. The purpose of the reserve fund is to mitigate the costs of significant works in the long term by making provision for them annually. The Tribunal would not expect such costs to be expended in the first year. The Respondent had replied that due to the non-payment of the service charge by several leaseholders it was not able to allocate monies to the Reserve Fund during this period. Consequently, the Respondent has not sought to place monies in the Reserve Fund in 2024/25 which is regrettable but understandable. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent has acted reasonably in this regard. Management Charge[79]The Applicant had submitted that the standard of the Respondent’s management of the Property was not reasonable but, in any event, the Respondent has not sought to recover any cost for this item in 2024/25. 2025/26 Estimate Demand[80]The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an Estimate Demand is reasonable but, generally, it will be slow to find it is not given that the leaseholders can always challenge the actual costs incurred during that period.[81]The Applicant has not particularised which of the line items in the 2025/26 Estimate Demand dated 5 January 2026 [181-183] she considers to be unreasonable.[82]The Respondent states that the demand was reissued along with the statutory Summary of Rights and Obligations. Failure to serve the Demand with the statutory Summary is suspensory only; once the Demand is served with the statutory Summary, the demand becomes payable. The Tribunal has no evidence as to whether that has taken place and makes no further findings.[83]The Tribunal finds that the sum of £1,209.03 is reasonable and that the Applicant is, or will be once the Demand has been served with a copy of statutory Summary if it has not been already, liable to pay this amount. Application Under s.20C and Para.5A and Refund of Fees[84]The Applicant has applied for an order under s.20C LTA 1985 and under para.5A Sch.11 CLRA 2002 preventing the Respondent from recovering any of its legal costs of the Tribunal proceedings either as a service charge or as an administration charge.[85]Considering the determinations above, the Tribunal determines that it will not make an order under s.20C LTA 1985 or under para.5A Sch.11 CLRA 2002. If the Respondent seeks to pass any of its costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the Tribunal either through the service charge or as an administration charge, the Applicant will still be able to challenge whether the lease provides that she should be liable to pay such costs, whether those costs have been reasonably incurred or whether they are reasonable in themselves.[86]The Tribunal makes no order regarding the reimbursement of Applicant’s tribunal fees. Application Under rule 13[87]On the facts of this case, and in light of the authorities referred to above, the Tribunal finds that the Respondent did not act unreasonably albeit it may have been helpful had the Respondent disclosed information earlier.[88]The Application therefore has no reasonable prospect of succeeding. Having regard for the overriding objective under rule 3(1) to deal with cases fairly and justly and in particular the matters under rule 3(2)(a) and (e) of:(i) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and the resources of the parties and of the Tribunal; and …(ii) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues no directions are made for further submissions, and the application is hereby refused and no order for costs under rule 13(1)(b) is made. Rights of appeal[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case.[2]The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision. Where possible you should send your further application for permission to appeal by email to rpsouthern@justice.gov.uk as this will enable the First-tier Tribunal to deal with it more efficiently.[3]If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28-day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.[4]The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.