10 Thornfield Green. Camberley, Surrey, GU17 9EY HAV/24UG/LSC/2024/0509

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case No HAV/24UG/LSC/2024/0509

Between

Mrs Reshma Tachkani Ms Ekta TachkaniApplicant

Thornfield Hawley Management Company LimitedRespondent

Before

Judge Tessa Hingston

Kevin Ridgeway MRICS

Jayam Dalal Lay member

Sennen Property Management Limited for the Applicant

Date 4 November 2025

Property: 10 Thornfield Green. Camberley, Surrey, GU17 9EY

Type of application: Determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges Section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

DECISION

OF THE TRIBUNAL: - The Tribunal determines that service charges are payable by the Applicants for the years 2018 – 2025 as set out in the table below. © CROWN COPYRIGHT SERVICE CHARGES PAYABLE. Required before Year Demanded Determined Payable - payment 2018 - 2019 £969.63 £871.63 Immediately N/A 2019 - 2020 £988.25 £969.42 Once served with - - Accountant’s certificate as per Lease, and Notice with correct landlord’s address. 2020 - 2021 £988.25 £955.96 Once served with - Accountant’s certificate as per Lease, and Notice with correct landlord’s address. 2021 - 2022 £1,017.63 £983.59 Once served with - Accountant’s certificate as per Lease, and Notice with correct landlord’s address 2022 - 2023 £1,079.33 £1,040.25 Once served with - Notice with correct landlord’s address 2023 - 2024 £1,088.27 £1,053.65 Once served with - Accountant’s certificate as per Lease, and Notice with correct landlord’s address 2024 - 2025 £1,190.16 £1,132.66 Immediately N/A TOTAL £7,321.52 £7,007.16 BACKGROUND

[1]This matter concerns the above flat (Flat 10) in a development called Thornfield Green, which consists of 24 residential units divided between 4 blocks set in their own gardens and grounds.

[2]The Applicants Mrs. R. Tachkani and her daughter Ms. E. Tachkani are challenging the service charges in respect of the flat, where they used to be joint leaseholders until Ms. Tachkani removed her name from the lease on the 21st of October 2019.

[3]The freehold is held by the Respondent, Thornfield Hawley Management Company Limited (hereafter referred to as THMC), who have employed Sennen Property Management as their agents since November 2017.

[4]The only current Director of THMC is Ms. Elizabeth Ricketts, who is also a resident and leaseholder of Flat 15.

[5]In December 2023 THMC issued proceedings against the Applicants in the County Court, claiming arrears of service charges under Claim No. M00YX218. This matter was transferred to the Tribunal in late 2024.

[6]The claim was defended on the basis that the service charge demands for the relevant years were flawed and invalid, and therefore nothing was payable.

[7]The Applicants then made an application to the Tribunal for determination of liability to pay and reasonableness of service charges for the years 2018 – 2025. The Application was received on 16 August 2025.

[8]The Applicants further seek orders pursuant to Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (hereafter referred to as ‘the 1985 Act’) and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, limiting the landlord’s ability to recover costs of the proceedings and administration costs from the Applicants by way of service charges.

[9]Directions were issued and eventually all matters were listed together for hearing before the Tribunal on the 25th of April 2025, with Tribunal Judge Jonathan Dobson sitting - both in his Tribunal jurisdiction, and as a Judge of the County Court to decide the issues falling solely within the jurisdiction of that Court.

[10]Judge Dobson summarised the County Court case at that stage as follows: - ‘The Respondent’s case in respect of the validity of demands was that the demands had not complied with the provisions of section 47 and section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It was also said that the administration charges which were claimed further to those demands not being settled by the Respondent were also not payable. The Respondent’s written submissions clarified ... that the Applicant’s address as stated on the demands was wrong. The Respondent cited the case of Beitov Properties v Elliston Martin

[2012] UKUT 133 (LC)

and said that the address on the demands was not the registered office of the Applicant or place of business of the Applicant.’ ‘...The Respondent said that the Applicant’s registered office had changed on 26th March 2018 from Knoll House, Knoll Road, Camberley GU16 7ER (which was the address stated on the demands) to Quatro House, Lyon Way, Camberley, GU16 7ER. The Respondent attached to her submission evidence of the records held at Companies House, which specifically identified a change to the registered office as at that date. ‘I find on the evidence presented that the Applicant’s registered office was not Knoll House after 26th March 2018 and that the Applicant had no other place of business. ‘I determine that as the demands at least prior to January 2024 contained the Knoll House address, they failed to comply with section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and so were not valid demands. There was and is no service charge payable in response to them.’

[11]As Judge Dobson determined that the service charge demands were not valid, both the County Court claim for arrears and the associated claim for costs and administration charges failed.

[12]Further Directions were then issued on the Tribunal application, and the final hearing was listed for the 19th of September 2025.

[13]A bundle comprising 656 pages of documents and exhibits was supplied to the Tribunal and to the Respondent, together with a separate bundle of 52 pages of photographs. [Page numbers referred to hereafter are from the main, original bundle unless otherwise stated.]

[14]On the 15th of September 2025 a supplemental bundle was received from the Applicants in respect of the service charges for the year 2024 – 2025.

[15]On the same day (15th September) a Response was received from the Respondents in respect of the supplemental bundle.

[16]On the 17th of September 2025 a Skeleton Argument from the Applicants was received by the Tribunal. This was followed by 96 pages of authorities which they proposed to rely on.

[17]On the 18th of September 2025 the Tribunal received from the Applicants a Case Management application consisting of a ‘Request for the Tribunal to disregard the Respondent’s representative’s direct submissions.’ It was requested that this should be dealt with as a preliminary issue at the hearing the following day. REPRESENTATION

[18]At the hearing before Judge Dobson on the 25th April 2025, the claimants in the County Court proceedings (THMC) were said to be represented by PDC Law, and Sennen Property Management were not joined or referred to as a party or representative.

[19]Although the case officer received correspondence from Sennen Property Management Limited, it was explained in writing to THMC that no authority had been provided for that company to represent them. As far as the court record was concerned, THMC’s representative in the Court proceedings remained the solicitors, PDC Law.

[20]Neither a director of THMC nor anyone from PDC Law attended the hearing on the 25th of April or presented any arguments on behalf of the company.

[21]However, at a further Directions hearing on 22nd of May 2025 Judge Dobson confirmed that the Tribunal had finally received authority from THMC for Sennen Property Management to act on their behalf. THE LEASES

[22]The relevant provisions are contained in two separate Leases, the ‘Service charge Lease’ [Page 128 of the bundle] and the ‘Ground Rent Lease’ [Page 140]. Service charges

[23]In respect of service charge provisions, the ‘Service charge’ Lease provides (at Clause 2, Page 131) that the tenant shall pay to the company the ‘yearly service rent hereinafter defined...’ ‘...on the first day of January every year in advance…’.

[24]Clause 3(3), Page 132 of the bundle) states that the ‘service rent’ payable is ‘...such sum as the Company or its duly authorised agent shall (in respect of any given year, by notice in writing upon the tenant in that behalf during the first quarter of such year) specify as the amount… for that year…’. The amount is to be determined ‘...in accordance in all respects with the provisions in that behalf hereinafter contained.’

[25]The tenant covenants under Clause 4 [Page 132] ‘To pay the service rent hereby reserved at the times and in the amount specified.’

[26]Under Clause 4 (5) the Company covenants to: - ‘...keep or cause to be kept proper books of account…’ with respect to(a) ‘all sums of money expended and all costs incurred by the Company of and incidental to the performance by the Company in complying with its obligations under the Lease’.

(b) all sums of money credit or other consideration (if any) received by or on behalf of the Company from the lessees of the flats, and

(c) all such other expenditure and receipts (if any) including the expenses of collecting the service rents or incurred generally in the general management of the Entire property for the benefit of the lessees of the flats.’

[27]Under Clause 4 (6) the Company covenants to cause its ‘auditors or accountants’ to prepare an account on the first day of January each year, showing the costs and expenses incurred in the last year and giving an estimate as to the ‘likely amount’ of costs and expenses for the next ensuing year [Page 135/6].

[28]On the basis of this account the said auditors or accountants shall then ‘...certify the amount which in the opinion of the said auditors or accountants the Company should charge…’ as service rent in the ensuing year. Each tenant ‘...shall be responsible for an equal one twenty-fourth share of such service rent.’

[29]Clause 6 [Page 136] deals with arrears of ‘service rent’. If the service rent is ‘...in arrear and unpaid’ for 21 days after it is due (whether it has been formally demanded or not) the Company may ‘...by notice in writing served upon the tenant specify the non-payment of rent… and require the same to be remedied within the time specified in the notice…’ , which shall be not less than 21 days.

[30]The service charge year (for accounting purposes) runs from the 1st of April to the 31st of March. Demands have generally been sent out in March or April each year. Insurance

[31]In the ‘Ground rent Lease’ at Clause 5(3)[Page 146] the Landlord covenants to ‘...at all times during the said term insure and keep insured the entire property including the Demised Premises against loss or damage by fire and other insurable risks as the landlord shall deem desirable or expedient…’ RELEVANT LAW

[32]See Appendix. HEARING

[33]The hearing took place at Havant Justice Centre on the 19th of September 2025.

[34]The Applicants Mrs. R. Tachkani and Ms. E Tachkani appeared in person.

[35]Ms. Elizabeth Ricketts, as the current sole Director of the Respondent Company (THMC) attended, together with Ms. Natalie Jones and Ms. Lucy Gomez of Sennen Property Management.

[36]Although the Applicants had raised the issue of Sennen Property Management (hereafter referred to as ‘Sennen’) making ‘direct submissions’ to the Tribunal, they did not enlarge upon this argument as a preliminary issue. It was, in fact, completely appropriate for the Sennen representatives to make submissions and give evidence on behalf of the Respondent Company, in their capacity as Managing agents with particular knowledge of the matters in dispute.

[37]The Tribunal did not find that there was any valid challenge to the role played by representatives from Sennen.

[38]The Tribunal bore very much in mind the fact that this case is not one where the tenants or lessees are in dispute with an external or ‘absentee’ landlord/freeholder who is imposing unreasonable costs upon them. The freehold in Thornfield Green is owned by THMC, the company which was set up for the residents to manage the premises themselves. The only representative of that company, the remaining Director Ms. Ricketts, is the sole Respondent purely as a result of her willingness to act for them in a voluntary capacity. APPLICANT’S CASE

[39]The Applicants’ case is set out in their original Application, in their Statement of Case of 27th June 2025, in the statements of Mrs. Reshma Tachkani and Ms. Ekta Tachkani dated the same day, in the ‘Reply to the Respondent’s Case’ dated 5th August 2025, in their ‘Supplemental Document’ dated 15th September 2025, in their Skeleton Argument dated 16th September 2025 and in their Closing Submissions document received on the 22nd of September 2025.

[40]Further submissions were made and evidence given by both Applicants during the hearing.

[41]The Applicants accused all other parties (namely the Respondent company, the sole Director Ms. Ricketts, and the staff of Sennen Property Management) of dishonesty and incompetence. It was further said (at Paragraph 4 of the Applicants’ written ‘Closing submissions’ that the Respondent’s County Court action for recovery of service charge arrears was ‘malicious and blasphemous’.

[42]In summary, the Applicants objected to, or challenged, most elements of every service charge demanded between 2018 and 2025. The challenges and objections fell into the following categories. A. Validity of demands.

[43]The preliminary issue in respect of each year was whether the Service charge demands were valid, and thus whether the charges were payable.• The first question was whether the date given for payment was in accordance with the Lease, and

• the second was whether the address of the landlord was given correctly. Date for payment: -

[44]In respect of the first demand in issue (dated 16th of March 2018) for the year 2018 – 2019 [page 229] there is no issue about the address of the landlord, THMC, which was correctly given as the Company’s then registered address as follows: ‘Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 that all notices (including notices of proceedings) may be served upon the landlord, Thornfield Hawley Property Management Co Ltd at Knoll House, Knoll Road, Camberley Surrey GU153SY.’

[45]However, the Applicants object to the date for payment in this demand, which specifies that the amounts will be ‘overdue’ if not received by a date which is less than 21 days from the date of the demand. The Applicants state that this is not in accordance with the terms of Clause 6 of the Service Charge Lease [Page 136]. Address: -

[46]In respect of the next five years, 2019 -2024, the Applicants have always argued that these demands were invalid, because they still gave the Knoll House address in the same format despite the fact that the Company’s registered office had changed on the 26th of March 2018 to the address of Sennen Property Management.

[47]It was submitted that, as Section 47 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 requires that any demand for payment should give the name and address of the landlord, if the address is incorrect or incomplete the demand is not properly served and the charge is not payable until it is so served.

[48]The case of Beitov Properties v Elliston Martin

[2012] UKUT 133 (LC)

had been cited in the County Court proceedings as authority for this proposition.

[49]In the Beitov case it was found that the address given in the demands, which was the address of the landlord’s managing agents, did not satisfy the requirements of Section 47 because it was neither the landlord’s registered office nor a place from which the landlord carried on business.

[50]The Upper Tribunal concluded that the Section 47 requirement is not merely for an address at which communications can be received (that matter being addressed by Section 48) but is intended to identify the landlord by providing ‘an address where the landlord can be found’.

[51]However, the Upper Tribunal also noted that if the landlord served a fresh notice with the correct address, the service charges would then be payable.

[52]In respect of the final year 2024 – 2025, the Applicants’ argument is slightly different, as they submit that the duplicated (but differently dated) demands at Pages 235 and 236 are invalid because the address given in the relevant box may not be ‘incorrect’ but it is incomplete. These documents list the address as follows: - ‘Notice is hereby given pursuant to Sections 47 and 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 that all notices (including notices of proceedings) may be served upon the landlord, Thornfield Hawley Property Management C/O Sennen Property Management Limited, Camberley, Surrey GU15 3DW’.

[53]The Applicants submit that this address is not sufficiently accurate, despite the fact that the demand(s) have the full address of Sennen Property Management repeated twice elsewhere on the face of the same letter.

[54]Finally, in addition to the challenges in relation to the service charge demands, there is a challenge to the validity of a letter dated 25th September 2024 from Sennen to Mrs. Tachkani [Page 236] which purports to be a Section 20B(2) Notice under the 1985 Act. This letter advises the leaseholders that additional costs may have been incurred during the year ended 31st March 2024, and they may be required to contribute to such costs. The Applicants submit that this notice is invalid because it does not contain sufficient detail or information as to the amounts involved.` B. Disputed elements of the service charges.

[55]Apart from the above issues over validity of the demands, the Applicants also challenged many of the landlord’s items of expenditure in detail as set out below, on the grounds that:• either they were not liable to pay the items under the terms of the Lease, and/or

• the figures were unreasonably high. The objections fell under the following headings: - a) Accounts and Budget breaches

[56]The Applicants submitted that the service charge accounts were:• poorly kept, and

• not prepared or provided in accordance with the terms of the lease.

[57]It was said that the managing agent’s ‘accountancy’ fees are not payable under the lease, because ‘accounting’ is part of the agent’s duties under the management agreement and there should not be a separate fee for ‘accountancy.’ The Applicants further complained that: -• the service charge monies are kept in the Sennen client account rather than in trust in a separate named account for this property;

• the Respondent is not a signatory to that account; and

• the annual service charge accounts and budgets for the years 2018 - 2022 were not certified by the Respondent’s ‘auditors or accountants’ in accordance with the Lease. It was submitted that payability of the service charges was conditional upon such certification.

[58]The Applicants accused the agents [Page 26 of the bundle] of ‘budgeting low’ and then overspending and using reserve funds to offset the deficit. Conversely [at Page 29] the Applicants allege that the agents ‘over-budgeted’ on a number of occasions during the relevant years, and they proposed that they should be credited or repaid for the difference, amounting to a total (on their calculation) of £300.52 over the 7-year period.

[59]The Applicants pointed out errors and inaccuracies in the Respondent’s documents and accounts, such as some incorrect figures in the document ‘Budget, Actuals and Invoices’ for the year 2024-2025 [Supplemental bundle]. They also stated that the ‘Service charge Accounts’ for THMC for the year 2022-2023 [Page 192], refer to other properties completely unconnected to Thornfield Green. b) Reserve fund

[60]The Applicants contended that there is no provision in the Lease(s) for a reserve fund, and therefore they should not have been required to pay an annual contribution to such a fund. Even if there were provision for a reserve, the Applicants submitted that it should not be used to subsidise the main service charge account whenever there was an over-spend or shortfall, or as a float for any surplus. They submitted that any amount in the fund should be in a separate account earning interest.

[61]Given that Sennen stated [Letter at Page 356] that the account in which Thornfield Green monies are held is an interest-bearing account, the Applicants requested information as to such interest.

[62]The Applicants stated that they had paid, under protest, some amounts towards the service charges during the relevant years (the last payment being £3,601 in April 2021) but they refused to pay any reserve fund contributions and in general they disputed both the payability and/or the reasonableness of all charges during the relevant period. c) Managing Agent – appointment and standard of service.

[63]The Applicants argued firstly that the Respondent (THMC) had no power to appoint managing agents under the terms of the lease, and secondly that the agents at Sennen were ‘inept, rude and deceitful’. The agents’ honesty, competence, professionalism and integrity were all called into question and their staff were described in derogatory terms throughout the case.

[64]The Applicants listed numerous complaints against Sennen as agents and managers. Amongst other criticisms it was alleged as follows: -• that they failed to reply adequately or at all to correspondence,

• that they failed to provide information and documentation when requested and required to do so,

• that they failed to instruct competent contractors to carry out works

• that their handling of service charge monies was not in accordance with the statutes or RICS guidelines, and

• that their processes in relation to service charge demands, estimates and budgets did not comply with the terms of the lease(s).

[65]The Applicants alleged dishonesty (for example) in that, in the ‘Service charge statement of account’ for the year ending 31st March 2025 (produced in the Applicant’s supplemental bundle) the standard pro-forma had not been amended to delete or change the sentence which asserts that: - ‘No leaseholder has made a request for a written summary of relevant costs in relation to the service charges payable or demanded as payable in the period in accordance with Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’ ...despite the fact that they had made a request in accordance with the above but received no reply.

[66]An issue was also raised as to the employment of the company Sentinel Services LLP for general maintenance works at the property: it was suggested that the agents had instructed Sentinel to carry out works because of a business link between one of the Directors of Sennen and the owner (or manager) of Sentinel, and that this was despite the fact that Sentinel provided a poor standard of service.

[67]Further details of all the allegations against Sennen are set out in the Applicants’ documents and were noted by the Tribunal, but are not repeated here. d) Management Fees

[68]The annual figures for management fees during the relevant years are set out in the table at Page 26, and they range from £4,536 in 2018-2019 to £5,679.20 in the year 2023 – 2024, with a slight decrease to £4,494.50 in the final year 2024-2025.

[69]The Applicants claimed that the services provided by Sennen were ‘substandard’ and these fees were excessive. They told the Tribunal that the service was so poor that the fees should be ‘Zero’.

[70]In any event, it was further argued that the initial management Agreement of 29th November 2017 was for a period of more than 12 months, and therefore it was a ‘qualifying long-term agreement’ under Section 20 and 20ZA of the 1985 Act. The Applicants cited the case of Corvan (Properties) Limited v Abdel-Mahmoud

[2018] EWCA Civ 1102

[Page 17 of the Authorities bundle] on this point.

[71]It was submitted that, as the consultation process under Section 20 had not been followed by or on behalf of the landlords, and no dispensation had been granted, the Applicants’ liability to pay for management charges that year at least (and potentially for the succeeding years, if the agreement was found to have been a ‘continuing’ long-term agreement) should be limited to £100.

[72]Finally, the Applicants also disputed any liability under the Leases to pay for:• Company Secretary’s fees

• Out of hours telephone services

• Banking fees (with VAT added)

• Separate Accountancy fees, and

• Postage fees (with VAT added).

[73]All of these were said to be ‘not in lease/not reasonable’. (74. Note: The ‘administration fees’ of £276, which were charged by Sennen in respect of late or overdue service charges for the year 2018 – 2o19, were also referred to and challenged. However, the Tribunal was not required to make any determination on this point because it was stated that the fees had been refunded to the Applicants following Judge Dobson’s decision on the 25th of April 2025.) e) Accountancy fees

[75]The Applicants objected to the charges for accountants’ fees as follows: -• £2,400 in the year 2022-2023,

• £600 for the year 2023-2024 and

• £720 for the year 2024 – 2025 [Page 24].

[76]It was said that these fees were not payable under the lease and the amounts were unreasonable.

[77]There is also a list of figures (mis-described as ‘Company Secretary Fees’ in the table at the top of Page 27) which sets out the fees of £600 per annum paid to Stewart and Co for preparing the annual service charge accounts for Thornfield Green. The Applicants objected to this charge on the basis that it was said to be ‘not in lease/not reasonable. f) Insurance

[78]The Applicants objected to the insurance policies arranged by the managing agents, and to the amount of the premiums payable. Their complaints included allegations that: -• Sennen had unreasonably failed to take account of alternative insurance quotations which they had provided each year

• The cover did not always refer to the right risks (for example – falling trees)

• The policy was said to be ‘commercial’ rather than ‘residential’

• ‘Flat roofs’ were mentioned despite there being no flat roofs at Thornfield Green

• ‘Employers liability’ insurance was not required

• The managing agents did not provide information about (or details of) the insurance when required to do so.

[79]It was submitted that adequate cover could be obtained with reputable insurers at a much lesser cost.

[80]The Applicants referred to the case of Cos Services Ltd v Nicholson 2017

[2017] UKUT 382 (LC)

as authority for the principle that landlords must justify insurance premiums as reasonably incurred, both in terms of sufficiency and cost.

[81]A table comparing the actual premiums paid each year to those proposed by the Applicants was exhibited at Page 28.

[82]The Applicants asserted that the management company and/or agents had an interest in securing more expensive insurance because they would then be eligible for more commission. It was demanded that any commission should be disclosed and accounted for.

[83]In their letter to the Directors of THMC of 29th April 2022 [at Page 343] , the Applicants accused the company of ‘..showing negligence’ regarding their obligations on buildings insurance and giving control to: ‘...your rogue, incompetent and useless managing agents Sennen.’ g) Gardening

[84]The Applicants disputed the frequency, adequacy and cost [as set out at Page 22] of the gardening services at Thornfield Green. A number of letters on this topic were exhibited. The complaints included allegations that the gardeners had: -• Blown leaves under the tress adjacent to block 7-12

• Urinated in the bushes nearby

• Dumped garden and other rubbish in the same area, and

• Failed to maintain lawns, hedges and plant pots adequately or at all.

[85]It was alleged that the gardeners favoured the gardens around the other blocks and neglected the gardens of block 7-12. Photographs comparing the different areas on different dates were exhibited. h. Fire risk assessment and Annual Front Door checks

[86]The Applicants objected to the costs of these, claiming that two-yearly front door checks were not required for buildings under 11 meters in height (according to the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022) and that Fire Risk assessments every two years were also unnecessary and excessive. i) Emergency Light testing

[87]It was submitted that the emergency light tests were carried out too frequently and the costs were excessive. In respect of this particular list of expenses [at Page 23] the payment of £1,248 to JA Electrical was challenged, and it was said that there was no evidence that electrical works were required in the year 2024 -2025. j) Porch Roof and Gutters.

[88]The Applicants complained that works under this heading were not done to a reasonable standard and the costs were excessive. Photographs of part of the guttering and porch roof of block 7-12, as visible from the Applicants’ flat and taken on different dates, were exhibited.

[89]In particular it was contended [Page 24] that the work was not done adequately in the years 2019 – 2024, and the Applicants claimed that internal walls in their flat had been affected by damp as a result of blocked gutters.

[90]It was submitted that the works by Sentinel in April 2023 [Invoice referring to ‘clearing all gutters and downpipes on all 4 blocks’, at a cost of £1,440] were not done to a reasonable standard and the cost was excessive.

[91]In contrast the Applicants agreed that the invoice at Page 656 for works (cleaning gutters and clearing moss off the porch roofs) by Pro-Clean at a cost of £1,100 in February 2024 was ‘reasonable and payable’. k) Window cleaning

[92]The Applicants claimed that the windows of their flat were not cleaned properly (and sometimes not cleaned at all), so they objected to the annual costs of between £528 and £780 during the years 2018 – 2025 [as per the list at Page 24] for the service.

[93]Photographs were exhibited and it was said that the sills were left dirty after the work had supposedly been done. l) General Maintenance and Repairs.

[94]The Applicants submitted that the sums demanded for various jobs were not payable and/or not reasonable. A list of 21 disputed invoices was produced [Page 25] with comments by each. In respect of 18 of these invoices the Applicants’ share of the cost for the year was less than £20, and in the majority of these it was less than £10.

[95]The Applicants argued that it was a matter of principle and not necessarily just about the amount.

[96]In respect of the three largest figures, the submissions were as follows: -• £2,260 - Signal Solutions [Page 591, 26th February 2022] – ‘not reasonable’.

• £2,590 – Signal Solutions [Page 592, 26th February 2022] – ‘not reasonable/required- work done in 2015 lesser cost.’

• £1,968 - ASL Limited Drainage - 14th November 2023. ‘No response to letter of 20th May 2025.’

[97]A separate invoice for £1,037.90 from Woking Aerials, dated 21st April 2015, was produced at Page 593 as a comparison with the two former invoices from Signal Solutions.

[98]The ASL bill was challenged largely on the basis that there was insufficient information about the works, and the landlords and their agents had not obtained competitive estimates for such a ‘high cost job’ or consulted the Applicants about it.

[99]Smaller bills in the list were contested because (for example) they referred to a specific flat number on the invoice, and the Applicants argued that these costs must relate to private, internal works which were not recoverable from other leaseholders. m) Lighting and Electrical

[100]At Page 25 the Applicants also listed 7 invoices which related to minor electrical works at the property between 2019 and 2021. The highest of these was from ‘Pebble Property Maintenance’, dated 30th November 2020, and it was for £279.30 (including VAT) in respect of checking the external lights.

[101]The Applicants argued that these invoices were either not reasonable, or the works were unnecessary, or they could have been done more cheaply by a qualified electrician. n) Communal bin cleaning

[102]The Applicants claimed that this service had not been done properly since 2023/24. The cost of the bin-cleaning service was £1,045.20 for the year 2023-2024 and £1,256.40 for the year 2024-2025. Costs and administration charges -

[103]The Applicants submitted that the landlords should not be permitted to recover any of the costs of these proceedings or administration costs from them by way of service charges. RESPONDENT’S CASE

[104]The respondent’s case was set out in their ‘Statement of Case’ dated 29th July 2025 (signed by Ms. Lucy Gomez and Ms. Natalie Jones of Sennen Property Management Company Limited), in the 15th September 2025 email ‘Response’ to the Applicant’s supplemental bundle and submissions, and in the statement of Ms. Elizabeth Ricketts dated 23rd of July 2025. As the sole Director and representative of the Respondent company (THMC), Ms. Ricketts had authorised the agents from Sennen to submit evidence and speak on her behalf.

[105]During the hearing oral evidence was also given and submissions were made by Ms. Ricketts, Ms. Gomez and Ms. Jones. A final written ‘closing submission’ was served after the hearing, as directed.

[106]Ms. Ricketts confirmed in her sworn statement that she had been a director of THMC since 2013 (although she mistakenly said at some point during the hearing that she thought it was 2017.)

[107]Purchasers of flats at Thornfield Green automatically get a share of the company upon taking up ownership.

[108]Ms. Ricketts stated that the most difficult aspect of the job had always been dealing with the complaints and numerous issues raised by the Applicants. As a result of the pressure, all of her fellow Directors had gradually resigned one by one, and because of‘ the Applicants’ ‘obstructive and abusive’ behaviour during meetings other members had been deterred from attending and/or becoming Directors themselves. A. Validity of service charge demands Date for payment: -

[109]In respect of the demand for 2018 – 2019, the Respondent submitted that the demand was valid, the time given for payment was in accordance with the terms of the lease, and the amount of the charge was reasonable. Address

[110]The Respondent and the agents accepted that Judge Dobson had made a preliminary finding that the address on the demands from 2019 – 2024 did not comply with the requirements of Section 47 of the 1987 Act. However, they sought confirmation as to whether the relevant service charges would become payable once corrected demands were served.

[111]In respect of the demand for 2024 – 2025, the Respondent was unable to say why two, duplicated, demands were sent out on different dates, but it was submitted that the address of the company was sufficiently accurate for the purposes of Section 47 as above. B. Disputed elements of the service charges

[112]The Respondent and their agents dealt with the Applicants’ various objections and challenges under the same headings, as follows: - a) Accounts and Budget breaches

[113]The Respondent and their agent stated that the accounts and budget statements were correctly prepared and sent out each year, and all information is now available to leaseholders of Thornfield Green via the online portal. It was said that requests for communications by post have been honoured whenever possible, and information has been provided to leaseholders when requested.

[114]Sennen as a managing agent hold all client funds in a single client account, which is a trust account, reconciled daily and then annually. It was said that there was no requirement for a Director of THMC to be a signatory on the account. Sennen do not prepare and/or audit the service charge accounts themselves: that is contracted to a third party, chartered accountants Stewart & Co.

[115]Evidence was given that the required financial information is compiled and provided to the accountants by Sennen each year, and the cost of this is part of their management fee under the Management Agreement [Page 245 et seq]. The list of services provided by Sennen includes: ‘...providing information to accountants prior to the preparation of annual service charge accounts.’

[116]None of the costs of accountancy in respect of Sennen’s own business are passed on to the client.

[117]It was said on behalf of the Respondent that the budget figures are prepared each year in collaboration with the Director(s), and the Director(s) have the final say as to what figure is set for the coming year. Ms. Ricketts and the agents told the Tribunal that, ideally, the budget would be also be discussed by all members at the AGM, but the system had been disrupted by the Covid pandemic and it had not always been possible to coordinate the two events. The budget document was then produced and signed for by the agents rather than by the accountants, because the agents and the company were familiar with the property at Thornfield Green and were in a much better position to estimate what future costs were likely to be.

[118]Every year communications were sent out to all residents/members of the company, inviting them to the AGM, which was normally held in the Autumn. Ms. Jones and Ms. Ricketts gave evidence that they had tried to encourage other members to become Directors, but they had not been successful. It was difficult to recruit others when there was an awareness of the ongoing dispute.

[119]As to the requirement in the lease for the Landlord’s auditors or accountants to certify ‘the amount which, in the opinion of the said auditor or accountant, the company should charge in... the ensuing year as the amount of the service rent’, Ms. Gomez gave evidence that she had been involved with Thornfield Green since 2020 and she was not aware of whether there had ever been any such certification of the accounts. It was not accepted that this type of certification as per the Lease was essential to payability.

[120]Ms Ricketts also confirmed that apart from the Applicants all other leaseholders had paid their service charges during the relevant years, and none of them had raised any issues with the budgeted sums or with the managing agents.

[121]As to the proper management of THMC bank accounts, the Tribunals’ attention was drawn to the Management Agreement, which states [at Page 249] as follows: -•

10.1 The Manager will comply with statutory and ARMA's rules for banking and holding any funds of the Client in a clearly designated Client bank account(s). Any such client funds must be held in trust.

•

10.2 The Client authorises the Manager to make payments for the benefit of the Property (or within the limits set out in 10.4 below - i.e up to £500) from the designated bank account(s) held for the Property.

[122]The Management Agreement was signed by a Director of THMC, Ms. P. Phillips, and by the manager of Sennen. b) Reserve fund

[123]On behalf of the Respondent Ms. Gomez submitted that, although there was no specific reference in the leases to a Reserve Fund, it was best practice to collect such funds to assist with any future cyclical works and/or major unexpected or urgent works which might arise.

[124]Ms. Gomez gave evidence that at the end of each year the accountants would come to her and ask how much should be put into ‘reserves’. As only 23 of the 24 shares of the expenses were being paid each year, they had to budget accordingly.

[125]The Reserve fund is kept ‘in trust’ in the Thornfield Green client account, together with service charge monies but separate on the Sennen systems. The company (THMC) could have their own entirely separate ‘Reserve’ account if they wished to do so.

[126]It was said that THMC and their agents had acted in the best interests of the leaseholders in maintaining the fund, and the amount of the annual contributions was reasonable. In some years, where the deficit had exceeded the amount of reserve fund contributions, the reserves had been used to pay costs without raising any further charges.

[127]Ms. Jones stated that, as the reserve fund was not ‘ring-fenced’ in a separate account from the other service charge monies held in trust, there was no reason why it could not be used in the event of an unexpected overspend. For example, one year a sum from the reserves had been used to build a new bin store.

[128]Ms. Ricketts told the Tribunal that she regarded the reserve fund partly as an ‘emergency’ fund, which could be used occasionally if there was a deficit, and also as a fluid, working fund to assist when necessary.

[129]It was further submitted that there was no obligation for the funds to be held in a high interest-bearing account.

[130]Ms. Ricketts told the Tribunal that, as far as she was aware, there had always been a Reserve fund.

[131]References to this ‘Reserve Fund’ were noted in the exhibits at Page 302 (THMC’s Minutes of their AGM in October 2015) and in the service charge accounts for the same year [Page 206]. c) Managing Agent – power to appoint and standard of service

[132]The Respondent Ms. Ricketts told the Tribunal that having a managing agent was essential: she could not function as a Director without them. The agents work closely with her as sole director, and they consult her on all matters before proceeding.

[133]It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that, although the wording of the lease does not expressly give power for the landlord to appoint a managing agent, it does implicitly suggest that an agent may be involved and it can be construed in such a way as to allow for it.

[134]The company had carried out their due diligence when appointing an agent in the first place, to ensure that costs were reasonable and that the property was managed efficiently.

[135]As to employment of contractors for works at the property, the suggestion of improper links between Sennen managers and any of the contractor companies was denied. The Management Agreement states [at Page 248] as follows: -• ‘7.1 The Manager has disclosed to the Client the details of any related companies with whom the Manager has an interest.

• 7.2 The Manager will not award any contracts for services or works of any kind to those associated companies without the prior consent of the Client. As above, the Agreement was approved and signed by a Director of THMC.

[136]As to the extent of the agent’s powers and duties, these are set out in the Management Agreement which was exhibited in the bundle [Page 244 et seq.].

[138]As for other criticisms of the Management Company, the Applicants’ allegations were disputed. It was said that they had responded to some of the communications from Mrs. R and Ms E. Tachkani, and they had done their best to provide either copies of requested documents or opportunities to inspect them (as shown in the correspondence in the bundle.)

[139]Ms. Gomez gave evidence that the Applicants had made personal attacks (verbally and in writing) on Ms. Jones, who was the designated Property Manager, and they had refused to accept Sennen as agents at all, often addressing complaints directly to THMC rather than to them.

[140]As for the contractors employed by the agents to carry out works, it was denied that incompetent contractors were employed. It is the THMC Director(s) who have the final say as to who is employed in any event, not the agents.

[141]In terms of the contention that the Sennen contract was a ‘Qualifying long-term agreement’ under Section 20/20ZA of the 1985 Act, the Respondent submitted that the initial Management Agreement was only for 12 months from the 1st of March 2018, and therefore it was not for ‘more than 12 months’ and it did not fall within the statutory definition in Section 20ZA(2).

[142]In respect of the agreement(s) for the years thereafter, it was said that there was a fresh agreement each year, and each was expressed to be for a period of 364 days. d) Management Fees

[143]Sennen manage a large number of properties of all kinds, and it was submitted that the management fees (as listed in the service charge accounts for each year) were slightly below the average, and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

[144]As to the other disputed items, the Respondent’s case was that all these costs were payable and reasonable as follows: -• Company Secretary’s fees: at Page 256 the Management Agreement refers to the cost of ‘Company Secretarial services’ as an additional service, for which there is an extra charge of £144 p.a.

• Out of hours telephone services: the evidence was that this extra service, together with the Company Secretary role, was provided by Sennen at the request of the company directors, because none of the company members were prepared to do it voluntarily.

• Banking fees (with VAT added): it was said that these were ‘company costs’ charged by the banks for transactions made through the client’s service charge account.

• The Directors’ and Officers’ insurance costs were also claimed by way of service charge contributions.

• Postage fees (with VAT added). it was said that Sennen is VAT registered and that the postage costs charged to some leaseholders were incurred in the course of acting for the company. Such costs are only charged to those residents who choose not to use the electronic communication system. e) Accountancy fees

[145]As to separate Accountancy fees: the invoices from Stewart & Co. for their accounting services were exhibited at Pages 202 et seq. It was submitted that these accountancy costs were reasonable. f) Insurance (Buildings etc.)

[146]The Respondent’s evidence was that they used a reputable insurance broker who assessed the market and ensured that the best possible cover was provided. The ‘block policy’ system allows for powerful negotiations on costs for all clients under the same management, but each property has its own individual policy in its own name. The insurance is always referred to the Director(s) of THMC for approval before any premium is agreed and paid.

[147]It was said that insurance quotations provided by the Applicants were not followed up because the cover was not always on a ‘like for like basis’, and it would have entailed extra work to check them out.

[148]In oral evidence it was suggested that not all of the Applicants’ letters about alternative quotes had been received, but Ms. Jones told the Tribunal that she would consider other options in future.

[149]In summary it was submitted that the insurance cover was appropriate and suitable and the cost was reasonable. g) Gardening

[150]The Respondent did not accept that the garden maintenance was done to a poor standard, or that there was unfairness and discrimination as between the different blocks. It was said that all common areas were maintained to a reasonable standard but the tall trees surrounding block 7-12 ‘alter the condition of the surrounding area, where natural sunlight is hindered.’ [Page 42].

[151]As to some of the areas where the Applicants claimed that their block had received an inferior service, evidence was given by Ms. Ricketts that the plant pots at the block entrances (for example) had been well-maintained by one of the contractors, but less well-maintained by another. At one of the company’s AGMs it had been agreed that the residents would take on the planting of the pots themselves. This explains the difference between photographs of one block and another.

[152]The gardening contract had in fact been competitively tendered and was said to be ‘in line with market rates’, as demonstrated by the competitive quotes provided and as compared to the invoices exhibited in the bundle. It was agreed that some areas of the gardens needed attention, but it was not possible to achieve everything in the limited time available and for the amount paid. Overall, the costs of gardening services were said to be reasonable. h). Fire risk assessment and Annual Front Door checks

[153]The Respondents stated that, in the light of the Fire Safety Act (even if the buildings were not 11 meters high) the company had decided to have the checks carried out regularly and frequently in order to ensure that all residents were as safe as possible should a fire ever occur [Page 43.]

[154]The time frame for the next assessment in each case was as per the recommendation of the accredited assessor. i) Emergency Light testing

[155]The Respondent stated that under the British Standard two emergency light tests are required each year: a ‘1-hour’ test and a ‘3-hour’ test, whereby lights are switched over to battery back-up for the requisite period. This helps to prolong the life of the battery pack. j) Porch Roof and Gutters.

[156]Ms. Jones told the Tribunal that one of the invoices for guttering included repairs, and the other was for just cleaning. It had been agreed that the gutters should be cleaned twice a year after 2023 because of the build-up of moss and leaves.

[157]It was submitted that the work was done to a reasonable standard and the costs were reasonable. k) Window cleaning

[158]It was submitted that the works were done to a reasonable standard and for a minimal fee, but that the quality of the work could only be properly assessed immediately after it had been done because of weather conditions etc. l) General Maintenance and Repairs

[159]As for the list of 21 disputed invoices under this heading, the Respondent contended that the Applicants’ objections were too generalised for a detailed response. The invoices, contractor reports and relevant correspondence were all submitted as evidence of actual costs properly incurred in performance of the landlord’s duties and obligations under the lease, and it was argued that the Applicants had failed to show that these relatively small sums of expenditure were unreasonable.

[160]In respect of the larger invoice from ASL Drainage, for example, it was said that some of the questions put by the Applicants could not be answered because the agents did not have sufficient details themselves. m) Lighting and Electrical

[161]It was denied that there was any duplication of electrical works, as alleged by the Applicants. One contractor had carried out the required EICR test, which was failed, and the agents then got quotations to carry out the remedial works.

[162]External light bulbs frequently failed and had to be replaced. n) Communal bin cleaning

[163]The Respondent did not make any particular submission on this subject. Costs and administration charges -

[164]The Respondents opposed the limitation on their ability to recover these costs by way of service charges. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

[165]The Tribunal had particular regard to the nature of the relationship between the ‘landlord’ (Respondent) and the ‘tenant’ (Applicant) in this matter.

[166]As explained above, the Respondent Company was set up for the participation and benefit of all those who purchased leasehold flats at Thornfield Green. The only representative of the company, the remaining Director Ms. Ricketts, is the sole Respondent purely as a result of her willingness to act for them in a voluntary capacity.

[167]If the service charges were unreasonably high Ms. Ricketts would suffer just as much as the Applicants, because she too is a resident who is liable to pay her one-twenty-fourth proportion of the total costs. The ‘Respondent’ in this case therefore has a vested interest in ensuring -• firstly that the costs are kept at a reasonable level, and

• secondly that works are done to a reasonable standard.

[168]It is in the interests of all concerned to view the relationship between the lessees and the Company as a co-operative and mutually beneficial endeavour, rather than as a hostile and adversarial relationship. A. Validity of demands Date for payment:

[169]The Applicants accepted that the demand dated 16th of March 2018 for service charges for the year from 2018 – 2019 [Page 229 of the bundle] gave the correct landlord’s address, but they disputed its validity because they asserted that under the Lease they had to be given a minimum of 21 days to pay before they could be said to be ‘in arrears’, and the demand only allowed 2 weeks for payment.

[170]This is not in fact what the ‘service charge’ Lease says. Clause 2 (as above) actually requires the tenant to pay the ‘service rent’ on the ‘1st of January each year in advance’, and Clause 4 requires them to pay such rent ‘...at the times and in the amount specified.’

[171]In practice the demands were usually sent out in March each year, and the tenants were given two weeks or more to settle the account. Clause 6 [Page 136] only comes into play when the service charge rent is ‘...in arrear and unpaid’ for 21 days after it is due, (‘whether it has been formally demanded or not’). If the said service rent was ‘due’ on January the 1st under the Lease, it could be said to be overdue from the 22nd of January onwards.

[172]In the particular circumstances of the case and in accordance with the Lease, the Tribunal finds that the demand for 2018 – 2019 was valid, and it is determined that the amount was payable by the 1st of April 2018 as stated. Address:

[173]The Applicants submitted that an incorrect or incomplete landlord’s address was given on all the service charge demands from 2019 – 2024. This issue is considered below.

[174]In Beitov Properties v Elliston Martin

[2012] UKUT 133 (LC)

(as cited by the Applicants) the landlord was a large, commercial landlord with a portfolio of different properties. The landlord’s registered office address – as given on the service charge demands – was in fact the address of its accountants. The Upper Tribunal held that the accountants’ address was not acceptable for the purposes of Section 47.

[175]However, the Thornfield Green situation can be distinguished immediately from that in Beitov Properties because (unlike the latter) the subject ‘landlord’ company, THMC, has no true ‘place of business’ or ‘office’ because it is not a commercial enterprise or even a separate entity: it is comprised of the leaseholders themselves.

[176]There are no company funds as such, no ‘office’ and no ‘business’ to be carried out, other than the running and administration of these 4 blocks of flats. The original registered ‘company address’ was Knoll House, which was the address of THMC’s accountants Stewart and Co., who had dealt with the Thornfield Green accounts both prior to 2018 and throughout the relevant period.

[177]The amended registered company address (as from 26th March 2018) was that of the new managing agents, Sennen Property Management Company Limited.

[178]As identified by the Upper Tribunal in the Beitov case, the purpose of Section 47 of the 1987 Act is that the tenant should know where the landlord can be found.

[179]In this case, the Respondent ‘landlord’ is embodied in the person of Ms. Ricketts, as sole Director, but no reasonable court could suggest that Ms. Ricketts should put the address of her private residence on the service charge demands. Arguably, it is the address where the Company is primarily based that should be given.

[180]Therefore, in the particular circumstances, the Tribunal considered that it is possible that the Knoll House address (as given on the demands for the years 2019 – 2024) was sufficient to comply with Section 47. It was the address of the Company’s accountants throughout the relevant period, and was just as much an ‘address where the landlord could be found’ as the address of Sennen, the managing agents, which was also given in full on each of those demands.

[181]It would be extremely difficult for any tenant of Thornfield Green to argue convincingly that they were unable to identify ‘an address where the landlord could be found’ for the purposes of the Act.

[182]However, given that Judge Dobson made a preliminary finding to the effect that the incorrect address rendered the demands invalid, this Tribunal does not have to determine the point.

[183]The Tribunal simply determines that once demands from 2019-2024 are served with the correct, registered Company address the charges will become payable forthwith.

[184]In respect of the limitation on demands outside the 18 month period from when the costs were incurred (Section 20B of the 1985 Act), the Tribunal finds that the original demands constitute(d) valid notices under Section 2oB(2) and therefore the time limit does not apply.

[185]In other words, by issuing the original demands within 18 months of the costs being incurred, the landlord had properly notified tenants that such costs had been incurred. The absence of s47 compliance (in respect of the address) delays payability, but not liability, under s20B(2))

[186]The demand for service charges for the period 2024 – 2025 is different, in that it is argued that the address given for the landlord on this document is partially correct, but incomplete.

[187]The Tribunal finds that the address as given, with the company name and the post-code, is sufficient. The address is further provided and emphasised by being repeated - in full - twice on the face of the same document, and the Tribunal finds that it would be an abuse of process to contest this particular demand on the grounds that it did not comply with Section 47 of the 1987 Act. The demand is valid and the Tribunal determines that the service charges are payable immediately. B. Disputed elements of the service charges. a) Accounts and Budget breaches – certification of accounts

[188]The Applicants have contended throughout the case that service charge accounts were not properly kept by the Respondent and their agent, and that the statutory requirements under Sections 21 and 22 of the 1985 Act were not complied with. They argue that it is therefore for the landlord/Respondent to prove that the costs were incurred, that they were reasonably incurred, and that the amount was reasonable.

[189]In these circumstances, the question arises as to who must prove what: and where the burden of proof rests.

[190]The Tribunal had regard to the case of Schilling v Canary Riverside Development Ptd Ltd [2005] LRX/26/2005, which was cited by the Applicants in respect of this issue and in which His Honour Judge Michael Rich QC stated [at Page 68 of the authorities bundle]: - ‘I accept Mr …..’s submission that the fiduciary duty of a landlord to account for any service charge which he collects, and the landlord's statutory duties under ss.21 and 22 of the Act of 1985, mean that it is sufficient for a tenant to raise the absence of a proper account in order to place upon the landlord an evidential burden to satisfy the tribunal that costs have, in fact been incurred. That is a burden that the Respondent in this case accepted and discharged so that the LVT was not satisfied by the deficiencies in accounting that costs had not been incurred.’

[191]Judge Rich also referred back to the long-established principle as set out in the case of Arbrath v. North Eastern Ry. Co.

(1883) 11 QBD 440

, where Bowen LJ stated (at p.457) "If the assertion of a negative is an essential part of the plaintiff's case, the proof of the assertion still rests upon the plaintiff."

[192]The Tribunal adopted the logical approach set out at Page 68 of the Authorities bundle in the Schilling case as follows: ‘If the landlord is seeking a declaration that a service charge is payable he must show not only that the cost was incurred but also that it was reasonably incurred to provide services or works of a reasonable standard, and if the tenant seeks a declaration to the opposite effect, he must show that either the cost or the standard was unreasonable.’

[193]The Tribunal therefore finds that, once the Respondent landlord has satisfied the Tribunal that the costs have been reasonably incurred, that the works were of a reasonable standard and the expenses have been paid for, it is for the Applicants to show that they were unreasonable.

[194]As for the Applicants’ criticisms of the manner in which the service charge monies are kept, this is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

[195]On the issue of certification of the accounts, The Applicants have argued that the provision in the lease which requires (at Clause 5(6) ) the landlord’s ‘auditors or accountants...’ to ‘...certify the amount which in the opinion of the said auditors or accountants the Company should charge…’ as service rent in the ensuing year, is a ‘condition precedent’ to payment.

[196]In the case of Powell & Co. Investments Limited 2021] UKUT 10 (LC) [Page 1 of the Authorities bundle] Martin Rodger QC considered the question of interpretation of a lease which required certification of part or all of service charge accounts. He referred to other authorities (At Para. 21) as follows: - ‘In Urban Splash Work Ltd v Ridgway

[2018] UKUT 32 (LC)

, after reviewing a number of cases about the certification of service charge accounts the Tribunal reiterated (at [77]) the fundamental but unsurprising proposition that in every case the function and significance of the certificate will depend on the terms of the agreement.’ (Tribunal’s emphasis)

[197]At Para. 24 Martin Rodger QC said: - ‘The general function of a certificate is to provide confirmation of facts relevant to the obligations of a party under a contract. Where the certificate is provided by a third party, as is often the case where the certificate concerns service charges payable under a lease, it is also intended to provide an assurance to the paying party that an independent person, usually with some relevant professional qualification, has satisfied themselves that the facts being certified are true.’

[198]At Para 34 he stated: - ‘Nor does Tech 03/11, the guidance produced by the ICAEW on accounting and reporting in relation to service charges, require that service charge accounts be audited before they can be certified. On the contrary, in paragraph 2.8 and again in paragraph 3.1.1 the authors recognise the primacy of the lease:• 2.8. ‘The service charge statement should include any certificates, statements and signatures by or on behalf of the accountant, landlord or agent that are required by the lease. In some cases, the lease may also require a separate certificate or signed declaration as to the amount payable by individual lessees. Care should be taken to ensure that any certificate or statement follows the exact terminology used in the lease.’’

[199]The Tribunal took note of the Court of Appeal case of Gilje v Charlegrove Securities Ltd

[2001] EWCA Civ 1777

[Page 8 in the Authorities bundle], where it was found that if a tenant’s liability is uncertain from the wording of the Lease, even read as a whole, the construction of the service charge clause will be against the landlord.

[200]It was held that service charge provisions are to be interpreted restrictively, emphasizing the necessity for clear, explicit contractual terms and clauses.

[201]In the Gilje case Lord Justice Mummery stated at Paragraph 31: - ‘In expressing my agreement... I note what is stated in paragraph 55 on page 71 of the 5th Edn of the Encyclopaedia of Forms and Precedents Vol 23 on Landlord and Tenant in the section relating to the drafting of provisions in leases for service charges. It is stated as follows: "The draftsman should bear in mind that the courts tend to construe service charge provision restrictively and are unlikely to allow recovery for items which are not clearly included."’

[202]The above authorities (and cases cited therein) relate to situations where the lease is construed against the landlord in order to save the tenant from unforeseen costs which were not expressly provided for in the Lease. The logic and justification for this approach is clear: it would be unjust to construe an ambiguous or poorly-drafted lease to the financial advantage of the landlord.

[203]In the Thornfield Green case, conversely, a restrictive construction of the lease may result in greater expense to the tenants. The Service charge Lease (as above) contains the requirement for certification by the landlord’s ‘auditor or accountant’ as to the amount which, ‘in their opinion’, should be demanded for each ensuing service charge year.

[204]If this provision is interpreted restrictively, with an unequivocal requirement for a qualified accountant to certify the amount, it will result in greater cost to the tenant, because a fee would have to be paid for the accountant’s additional services.

[205]The Applicants have already contested the annual fees payable to Stewart and Co. for preparing the basic service charge accounts, on the grounds that they are either not payable or excessive, but extra fees for certification (as provided at Page 191 for the period 2022-2023) would increase those costs.

[206]Retrospective certification would also have little effect because the estimated or budgeted expenses in the disputed years have now actually been ‘incurred’.

[207]The Tribunal considered that in the subject case it was arguable that the requirement for certification of the amount to be charged was actually to assist the landlord (by way of providing budgeting advice based on the previous year’s expenditure) rather than for the protection of tenants from excessive demands.

[208]In particular it was noted that the managing agents Sennen are in an unusual position in this case, because in some senses they are indeed ‘independent’, as they represent both sides. They are employed by THMC - which is the landlord company and owner of the freehold - but THMC is also the corporate entity made up of (and representing) the tenants. As such, it could reasonably be said that Sennen are better placed than any accountant to advise as to existing expenditure and future budgeting requirements.

[209]The lease refers to an ‘opinion’ in this regard, and makes no reference to the ‘professional capacity’ of the person proffering such an opinion, nor does it refer to a ‘chartered’ accountant.

[210]The Tribunal took account of the fact that any overpayment of service charges has resulted in a boost to the (disputed) reserve fund, and underpayments have been reconciled in future years. Thus the tenants have suffered no prejudice as a result of the of the service charge accounts and ‘Budget Statements’ being certified by Directors of Sennen and THMC, (as they have been to date) rather than by ‘auditors or accountants’.

[211]Nevertheless, despite all the above factors, on balance the Tribunal finds that the lease should be construed restrictively, and an accountant’s certificate is required in order to render the charges payable. The Sennen directors are not ‘accountants’, and the service charges for the relevant years will only become payable as soon as the correct accountant’s certification is obtained.

[212]The Tribunal therefore determines that the Applicants will be liable to pay their one-twenty-fourth share of the cost of accountant’s certification (in accordance with Clause 5(6) of the relevant lease as above) for each of the years in question. b) Reserve fund

[213]The Applicants disputed that there was any power under the Lease(s) for the landlord THMC and their agent to set up and run a reserve fund.

[214]It is correct that there is no specific reference to any such fund in either of the relevant leases, but the landlord company is given a wide discretion as to how to manage and administer the development, and although there is provision (in Clause 5(6)) for estimating future expenditure, there is no instruction as to balancing payments or credits. It could therefore be argued that some kind of reserve fund is envisaged or permitted by the lease.

[215]The Tribunal took note of two pieces of evidence in particular; the first being the evidence from Ms. Ricketts and the Sennen representatives that the reserve fund had been operating for many years, with the approval of all parties, and the second being the Applicants’ concession (in answer to a question from the Tribunal) that it was, in principle, good practice to have such a fund in a development like Thornfield Green.

[216]In support of the first piece of evidence, the Tribunal considered the ‘Directors Report and unaudited financial statements for the year ended 31st March 2015’ at Page 206 . This document lists the names of the then 6 Directors (including Ms. Ricketts), states the company’s registered address as at Knoll House, and refers to the company’s accountants, Stewart & Co. The report was said to have been approved by the Board on 3rd of June 2015.

[217]At Page 210 there is the 2015 Chartered Accountant’s Report from Stewart & Co., and the accounts themselves show an ‘Operating surplus’ of £2,559 for the year, and a figure of £6,219 as ‘Other reserves’ under the heading ‘Capital and reserves’.

[218]At Page 215 the ‘Reserves’ as at 31st March 2015 were said to be £9,260. The ‘Bank deposit interest’ was given as £5.

[219]As to the long-term existence of - (and the Applicants’ apparent acquiescence to, and approval of) the ‘Reserve fund’ - the Tribunal also took account of the AGM Minutes of the THMC Limited on the 3rd October 2017 [Page 302]. Both Mrs. R and Ms E. Tachkani were present at this meeting.

[220]At Page 303, Point 3, there is reference to a discussion about the ‘reserves’ being used to contribute to the budget deficit, and whether it was preferable to have a low reserve fund with lower service charges and occasional one-off levies, or a higher reserve paid for by higher service charges.

[221]The then agent’s representative, Mr. Hignell, expressed his view that it would be prudent to have a reserve equivalent to 60-70% of the annual service charge, and Mrs. Tachkani is recorded as saying that there should be a focus on reducing costs where possible. There is no record of any objection from Mrs. or Ms. Tachkani to the existence of the reserve fund in principle, or of any discussion as to interpretation of the Lease on this point.

[222]There was further discussion about the reserve fund at Point 4.

[223]From the records of this meeting, it appeared that all concerned had implicitly agreed, over time, to a variation (if such a variation was, in fact required) of the lease to permit the establishment of a reserve fund.

[224]Other references to ‘reserves’ in the case papers were also noted by the Tribunal. The ‘Services provided’ under the Management Agreement [Page 245 et seq] include the following:- ‘preparing and sending out service charge estimates, collecting service charges and reserve fund contributions including sending demands and associated summaries and any required statements...’

[225]Having considered all of the above evidence the Tribunal finds that, although not explicitly provided for, the lease’s broad repairing obligation implies the power to accumulate reserve funds, subject always to reasonableness. The Tribunal finds that it was reasonable and permissible under the lease(s) for the Directors of THMC to establish and maintain a reserve fund, and the Applicants are estopped from disputing its validity.

[226]The annual amount required by way of contribution was also found to be reasonable, in relation to the type of property and the likely expenses to be incurred in maintaining it.

[227]The Tribunal therefore determines that all contributions to the ‘Reserve Fund’, as demanded during the relevant period, are payable in full by the Applicants. c) Managing Agent – power to appoint and standard of service.

[228]The Tribunal noted that the Service charge Lease [at Page 132, Clause 3(3)] appeared to envisage or intend that the landlord might need to appoint a ‘duly authorised agent’ – at least for the service of notices in respect of the amount of service charges for each year.

[229]At Clause 5(5) of the same Lease [at page 135] the ‘Company’ (THMC) is given a wide discretion as to costs which may be incurred in performance of its obligations or in exercise of its powers under the Lease, and under sub-paragraph (c) there is reference to ‘expenditure… incurred generally in the general management of the...property...’

[230]At Clause 5 of the Third Schedule of the ‘Ground Rent Lease’ for Flat 10 [Page 151], it is noted that the Management Company and its ‘...surveyors and agents, with or without workmen and others…’ have the right to enter the Demised Premises for the purpose of carrying out its obligations under the lease.

[231]The Tribunal also took account of the Court of Appeal decision in Embassy Court Residents' Association Limited v. Lipman [1984] EWCA Civ J0210-2 which was cited by the Applicants as authority for the proposition that a landlord had no power to appoint a managing agent unless there was a specific provision to that effect in the lease.

[232]In fact the Embassy Court case was decided some time before the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 came into force, and before the service charge provisions of that Act were set out, but it nevertheless decided an important point on the question of construction of the lease in this situation.

[233]Significantly, the Court of Appeal noted the distinction between an individual landlord and a company formed by (and made up of) the residents themselves. In the former situation their Lordships found that it would not be reasonable for a term to be implied into the Lease allowing for the landlord to appoint a managing agent, but in the latter case, the position would be different.

[234]The Tribunal found that there were a number of similarities between the Embassy Court facts and the subject case. The Management Company at Embassy Court was a Resident’s Association, and the responsibility for running the company fell on the shoulders of some of the residents, who gave their services voluntarily. When the burden of this became too great (partly as a result of the numerous challenges and objections raised by one resident, the Respondent Mr. Lipman) the Company appointed a managing agent. The court of Appeal held that the costs of the managing agents’ fees could be recovered from the tenant.

[235]Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce [at Page 88 of the Authorities bundle] said: - ‘There were two live issues. One was whether, on a proper construction of the lease… there was any obligation assumed by the defendant to pay for certain charges, to wit a management fee due to professional managing agents, Messrs Bailey & Co., pursuant to a contract by the plaintiffs entered into with those managing agents...’ ‘It is clear, in my view, that for a proper understanding and construction of the lease...it is right to take into account that the background and matrix of that transaction was the intention of each of the individual residents who became signatories to similar leases, to obtain a situation in which they, the residents, acting through the machinery of their corporate body, the Residents' Association, would be able to take their own decisions as to the management of the building insofar as management had obligations in respect of the common parts etc. and for the due performance of the landlord's covenants of repair.’ ‘One can see, in a case of a small block such as this with 14 residents, that great advantages are likely to be derived by individual lessees because each of them, by becoming a member of the Residents' Association Company…’ (similar to THMC), ‘...is by the machinery of these two leases put in the position of being able to take part and have a personal right in the performance of the landlord's covenants for the benefit, not only of each individual lessee, but of all individual lessees.’ ‘It is also quite plain that parties who enter into the kind of transaction contemplated by...’ (the lease) ‘...must realise that such a scheme, for its efficacy, will only be workable if a certain modicum of good neighbourliness and common sense is afforded by each of the individual members of the Residents' Association, and provided that each of the residents is prepared to act with ordinary common sense and courtesy, it is likely that the costs of the Residents' Association Company may be restricted to a negligible amount. But it is also clear that, if by reason of awkwardness and difficulty on the part of any lessee to reconcile him or herself to co-operation in an ordinary civilised way with the Residents' Association, in that situation the work that may have to be undertaken by the Association may become such a burden that it is necessary to spend quite a lot of money by procuring the performance of the functions which the Residents' Association is... under an obligation to perform*. That is exactly, on the judge's findings, what happened in this case. ‘For many years all was sweetness and light and the work which had to be done by the Residents' Association Company was readily performed by one or two members who undertook the necessary labour. That labour was concisely stated in the evidence called by the plaintiffs in the county court, in particular Mr. ... and Mr. .... They described that it was practicable for individual members to do all the work for some seven years, but then the situation changed because far more work rather suddenly appears to have devolved on the members who were voluntarily undertaking it. It is described thus by a witness: - "I found it a headache sending out letters and chasing up money. None of the tenants wanted to get involved. I was spending all Sunday morning chasing round. It was getting ridiculous. All the defendant's queries were our biggest headache." ‘...On the findings of the judge on the evidence before him, it was to a significant degree the work stimulated by the defendant that led to the situation that it was impracticable any longer for the members voluntarily to do the work which was necessary for the performance of the function of the Residents' Association.’ ‘If I am right in holding that the judge was correct in his view, as a matter of construction, that it was open to the Residents' Association to incur administrative expenditure and to recover it, is there any difficulty arising from the fact that, when the work reached the peak that it did in 1980 or 1981, the Association should decide to employ a managing agent? Again, it is perfectly clear that if an individual landlord wants to do that and to recover the costs from the lessee, he must include explicit provisions in his lease. But here the transaction contemplated management by the Association Company, which had no funds, and somebody had to do the administrative work. It might have been sensible for the Management Association to take one or more people on their staff for the purpose of doing the administrative work. But it was likely to be more economical to employ managing agents, such as Baileys, which is what they did…’ (Tribunal’s emphasis).

[236]The Court of Appeal held that the judge in the lower court was right in relation to the principle question of construction, namely whether the Respondent was liable to reimburse the Company for their costs of complying with their obligations under the lease, which included the cost of employing the managing agents. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed: the management fees were payable.

[237]Lord Justice Parker concurred with Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce and said: - [Page 92 of the Authorities bundle]: - ‘I agree. This is a familiar scheme. It is a scheme which, whether the test of business efficacy as laid down in The Moorcock [1889] 14 P.D.64, or the "innocent bystander" test of Reigate v. Union Manufacturing Co. (Ramsbottom) Ltd.

[1918] 1 KB 592

, or any other test be applied, makes it abundantly apparent that an implied term must be incorporated in the lease providing for the tenants to pay any managing agents' fees if the company decides to employ a managing agent. The contrary is simply unarguable. Having set up a company, that company is composed of a number of individuals, none of whom may have the slightest ability to do accounts, to inspect properties, to manage properties, or anything else, but this scheme contemplated that the company would do all those things and it is simply out of touch with reality to suggest that, if they decide to employ a managing agent, they are not entitled to recover from the tenants on the same basis as they recover in respect of the direct charges of fulfilling the landlord's obligations.’ (Tribunal’s emphasis).

[238]In the light of the above the Tribunal finds that the Leases in this case provide for the landlord to comply with its various covenants and obligations without specifying how that should be achieved. If it makes sense for the landlord to employ managing agents, then the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable for them to do so and the costs thereof (by way of management fees, as long as they are at a reasonable level) are ‘reasonably incurred’.

[239]As to the standard of service, despite the Applicants’ criticisms of Ms. Jones in particular and Sennen in general, the Tribunal did not find that the agents had acted dishonestly or fraudulently, or that they were incompetent.

[240]The Tribunal was satisfied that the agents had acted in good faith, in close consultation with such directors of THMC as were available to work with them, and that there was no evidence from any other resident (out of the 23 remaining leaseholders of Thornfield Green) that their services were anything other than satisfactory.

[241]The Tribunal had regard to copies of correspondence, direct evidence from Ms. Gomez, Ms. Jones, and Ms. Ricketts, and AGM minutes of THMC in order to reach conclusions as to the competence, honesty and efficiency of Sennen as agents.

[242]An example of a reasonable and fair response to the Applicants’ concerns and enquiries is the letter from Ms. Gomez to the Applicants dated 30th October 2023, at Page 389 of the bundle. It is characteristic of this case that, despite being afforded 48 different times, dates and opportunities to inspect documents at the agent’s offices, the Applicants declined to accept any of them.

[243]The Tribunal finds that the volume, extent and frequency of correspondence from the Applicants to THMC and Sennen placed an increased administrative load on those managing the property. In addition, the Applicants frequently included abusive and insulting comments about individual directors and/or members of staff in their correspondence, and the Tribunal found that this adversely affected communication between the parties.

[244]The Tribunal considered that the letter from Brethertons Solicitors to the Applicants dated 8th April 2019 [Page 381] was justified, in light of the multiplicity and nature of the Applicants’ letters in the preceding 14 months. The cost of this, listed in the accounts for that year (2019 -2020) as the ‘Legal Fee’, was £1,200.

[245]The Tribunal determines that the ‘legal fee’ in that instance was reasonably incurred and the Applicants are obliged to pay their share of it by way of service charges.

[246]In respect of the criticisms of errors on the part of Sennen, such as typographical mistakes, failure to delete incorrect passages from pro-forma statements, and (in the most recent service charge accounts summary) incorrect calculations, The Tribunal directed that these specific faults should be remedied by the agents immediately. The mistake as to the numbering of the flats (1 – 25, excluding 13, and not ‘1 -24’) should also be corrected on all documentation.

[247]As to the suggestion that contractors had been dishonestly employed by Sennen because of personal links between their directors and the contracting companies, the Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate this claim, and no proof that such an arrangement (if it existed) was either advantageous to the Sennen Directors or disadvantageous to the tenants. Besides, the evidence was that the Management Agreement expressly dealt with this issue (as above) and no contractor was engaged without the approval of the company Director(s).

[248]In conclusion, despite some criticisms of Sennen’s management and some improvements which could be made, the Tribunal finds that, overall, the service provided was to a reasonable standard. d) Management Fees

[249]As to whether this is a ‘Qualifying long-term Agreement’ under Section 20 and 20ZA of the 1985 Act: the Tribunal noted that the wording of the Agreement between THMC and Sennen Property Management at Page 246, point 1.8, states that the term is for:- ‘ … a period of 1 year from the 1st of March 2018...’ and it ‘...will continue thereafter…’ subject to various termination options.

[250]This wording is virtually identical to that of the agreement in the case of Corvan (Properties) Limited v Abdel-Mahmoud

[2018] EWCA Civ 1102

, in which it was held that such an agreement was for ‘more than 12 months’ for the purposes of Section 20ZA (2) of the 1985 Act, and therefore it was a ‘qualifying long-term agreement’ and the consultation requirements of Section 20 applied.

[251]The Tribunal therefore determines that, in respect of the first year of Sennen’s management (i.e. from March 2018 - March 2019) the tenants’/Applicants’ liability to pay a contribution to management fees is limited to £100, because the statutory consultation process had not been followed.

[252]Thereafter, the Applicants argued that it was one ‘continuing’ agreement for the entire period, but the Respondent’s evidence was that a fresh agreement was signed for each 364-day period thereafter.

[253]The Tribunal finds that the initial agreement ended after the 1st of March 2019, and none of the subsequent agreements were ‘qualifying long-term agreements’ under Sections 20 and 20ZA, because they were all for a term of less than 12 months.

[254]For the years from 2019–2025, therefore, the reasonableness of the management fees has to be determined (as below).

[255]The Tribunal finds that the main Management fees were within a reasonable range for this type of residential development.

[256]It is determined that the Fees for the years 2019 – 2025 are therefore payable by the Applicants in full.

[257]The Tribunal went on to consider the specific challenges to other elements of the management fees, as follows:• Out of Hours telephone service

• Company Secretary fees

• Postage fees

• Banking fees

• Directors’ and Officers’ insurance costs,

[258]The Tribunal finds that it was not reasonable to charge extra fees for these services because they were not provided for under the lease and they should all be included in the main fee. It is determined that these figures are not payable by the Applicants. f) Accountancy fees

[259]The evidence was that Stewart and Co. had been preparing the service charge accounts for Thornfield Green each year prior to the appointment of Sennen in November 2017, and they continued to do so thereafter, at a cost of £600 per annum, rising to £720 in the year 2024 – 2025.

[260]The Tribunal was satisfied that the preparation of annual service charge accounts was properly delegated to Stewart and Co. by Sennen, as the Management Agreement at Page 254 states that they (Sennen) are contracted to: - ‘...provide information to accountants prior to the preparation of annual service charge accounts’.

[261]The Tribunal finds that the annual charges for external accountancy were reasonable, and determines that they are payable by the Applicants in full.

[262]At least partly in response to the Applicants’ objections to the service charge accounts, Sennen then instructed Stewart and Co to perform an extra service by producing the ‘Accountant’s Report of Factual Findings’ [Page 191] for the year 2022 – 2023, at a cost of £2,400.

[263]The Tribunal finds that this cost in 2022 – 2023 was reasonably incurred in the circumstances, and the amount charged for the service was reasonable. The Applicants are liable to pay their one-twenty-fourth share in full (as determined above). h) Insurance

[264]As to the Applicants’ objection to the insurance cover being arranged by Sennen in their own name, rather than in the name of THMC, the Tribunal had regard to the wording of the 1985 Act.

[265]At Section 18, under the definition of a ‘service charge’, the Act refers to: - ‘... 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 … or insurance or the landlord's cost of management…’

(b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs. (2) The ‘relevant costs’ are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord...in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable.’

[266]Section 30 states as follows: - "In the provisions of this Act relating to service charges— … "landlord" includes any person who has a right to enforce payment of a service charge."

[267]As above, the Tribunal found that the managing agents Sennen had been properly appointed in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

[268]Under the Management Agreement, listed as ‘Additional services’ [at Page 256] Sennen are contracted to deal with service charge arrears and they are authorised to undertake; - ‘Legal recovery of unpaid service charges...or action for non-compliance with leases including instructing solicitors and preparing for and attending Court/Tribunal’.

[269]The Tribunal therefore finds that Sennen fall within the definition of a ‘landlord’ for the purposes of Section 30, because they had the right to enforce payment of service charges. Accordingly Sennen are entitled to incur costs (including costs of insurance) both as and/or on behalf of the landlord, in their capacity as agents under the Agreement.

[270]As to the reasonableness of insurance costs, the Tribunal was mindful of the case law which confirms that landlords are not obliged to select the cheapest option for insurance, but they should arrange for appropriate cover which is obtained ‘at arms length’, and the premium should be within a reasonable range.

[271]In this particular case there is a wide discretion afforded to the landlord by the Lease, which requires them to insure the property ‘..against loss or damage by fire and other insurable risks ...as (the landlord) shall deem desirable or expedient…’ .

[272]There is no stipulation that they must to do this through a ‘reputable insurer’ or any similar provision.

[273]As to the alternative quotations provided by the Applicants each year, although it was possible that some of the companies could have provided appropriate cover at a lesser cost, there was no obligation under the lease – or according to any legal precedent - for the landlord to take account of these alternative quotations or to act upon them.

[274]The Tribunal accepted the evidence from the Respondent, and the agents from Sennen, that they used an insurance broker who selected the most suitable and affordable cover on the open market at that time. Ms. Ricketts stated that she trusted Sennen to arrange insurance on behalf of THMC, and they always discussed expenditure with her and obtained her approval before going ahead.

[275]The Tribunal considered, having heard evidence from the parties, that the Applicant’s suggestion that any of those involved were accepting ‘back-handers’ in the course of arranging insurance was totally without foundation.

[276]The Applicants had drawn the Tribunal’s attention to the case of Cos Services Ltd v Nicholson

[2017] UKUT 382 (LC)

, [at Page 39 of the Authorities bundle], which was correctly cited as authority for the proposition that insurance costs must be both ‘reasonably incurred’ and at a reasonable price.

[277]In the Cos case, the premiums arranged by the landlord were, in each of the 3 years in question, some £10,000 higher than the amount put forward by the tenants, and the Court found that these premiums were excessive. Unsurprisingly the insurance element of those service charges was found to be not ‘reasonably incurred.’

[278]In the subject case, in contrast, there is less of a discrepancy: the differences between the actual annual premiums and the proposed alternatives (as set out in the Applicants’ list at Page 28) range from a difference of £1,734.05 at the highest (in 2022-2023) to £211.18 at the lowest (in 2023 – 2024).

[279]The Tribunal finds that all the figures in the Applicant’s table, both actual and proposed, were within a reasonable range for standard insurance on a property of this type.

[280]The Tribunal also used its own knowledge and experience in finding that it was practical (and probably more cost effective overall) for Sennen to insure Thornfield Green under their commercial ‘block’ policy, and that because such a policy included properties of different kinds it was unsurprising that there might be reference to ‘flat roofs’ etc.

[282]No evidence was adduced to show that the premiums were higher as a direct result of the block policy than they would have been otherwise.

[283]The Tribunal therefore determines that the service charges in respect of insurance premiums were both reasonably incurred and at a reasonable level during the relevant period, and the Applicants are liable to pay them in full. g) Gardening

[284]The Tribunal considered this item in terms of cost and value for money. Taking an average hourly rate of between £25 and £45 per hour (say £30 as a starting point) for gardening services, the Tribunal calculated how many hours of gardening should be provided for the amounts paid (as set out in the Applicant’s table at Page 22).

[285]In the year 2018-19 the total cost of gardening was £3,941. This equates to approximately 131 hours per annum, or two and a half hours per week, for maintaining the gardens for the whole development. The Applicant’s share of the gardening cost in that year was just over £3 per week.

[286]The costs over the next 6 years then decreased, reaching the lowest point in the year 2024 – 2025 when the total cost for the year was £2,914.14 and the Applicants’ contribution was approximately £2.33 per week.

[287]The Applicants’ photographs and complaints were considered, and the Tribunal accepted that in some of the photographs it looked as if some areas of the gardens needed attention, particularly the lawn which was said to be adjacent to block 7 – 12 and the ivy and vegetation near to the same block’s entrance.

[288]Valid criticisms of the gardeners’ behaviour (e.g. dumping of waste) were taken seriously by the managing agents and acted upon (as per the correspondence). However, the photographs confirmed that the lawn in poor condition was overshadowed by large trees and bushes, and the Tribunal considered that works such as re-seeding of new grass would involve considerable extra time and expense to be passed on to the tenants.

[289]If the Applicants require gardening of a higher standard, then they would have to be prepared to pay for it.

[290]Given the limited time allocated to gardening and the limited amount of money spent on employing contractors, the Tribunal found that the gardening costs for the years 2018 – 2025 were reasonable and the work was done to a reasonable standard.

[291]The Tribunal determines that this element of the service charge for each year is payable in full. h. Fire risk assessment and Annual Front Door checks

[292]The Applicants objected to the cost of these, claiming that annual front door checks were not required for buildings under 11 meters in height (according to the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022) and similarly Fire Risk assessments every two years were unnecessary and excessive.

[293]The Tribunal accepted the agents’ evidence that the fire door checks and regular risk assessments were carried out on each occasion as recommended by the accredited company who had prepared the previous report.

[294]For example, the Fire Risk Assessment report by DP Maree Limited in March 2018 [Page 414] recommends an ‘external consultant review’ in March 2020. The most recent ‘Fire, Health and Safety Risk Assessment’ by Delco in June 2024 actually recommends [at page 512] a review in June 2025. Each assessment highlights issues which may need to be addressed by the management company and/or their agents.

[295]The Tribunal did not accept that the Hearsay evidence of an unnamed party from Hampshire County Council, who apparently spoke to Ms. Tachkani, was persuasive as regards the need for regular inspections.

[296]In the circumstances the Tribunal finds that, whether or not the building was 11 meters in height, each block contains 6 flats and the cost of fire risk assessments (at less than £25 per flat every two years) was reasonably incurred. The managing agent was acting responsibly and with due diligence towards the residents, and the cost was reasonable.

[297]The fire door check in January 2024, at a cost of £16 per flat, was also found to be reasonable.

[298]The Tribunal determines that the Applicants’ share of both these costs is payable in full. i) Emergency Light testing

[299]In respect of the Applicants’ objection to the frequency and cost of the emergency light testing, the Tribunal accepted the evidence from the Respondent that there were two tests required each year: one ‘one-hour’ test and one ‘three-hour’ test.

[300]The Tribunal finds that these annual costs - at a total of approximately £10 per flat per annum - were reasonably incurred and payable by the Applicants.

[301]As to the specific objection to a payment of £1,248 for electrical works in 2o24, the invoice at Page 573 shows that JA Electrical carried out a full ‘domestic electrical condition report’ for the common areas of the development in April 2024, and this item was not in respect of emergency light testing.

[302]The Tribunal finds that this cost was reasonably incurred and payable by the Applicants. j) Porch Roof and Gutters.

[303]In the 2018 – 2019 accounts [Page 162] there is no separate item charged for ‘Gutter cleaning’, but the ‘General Maintenance’ figure apparently includes £275 for this service.

[304]Then, during the years from 2019 – 2023 the cost of ‘gutter cleaning’ was £276 per year for the whole development [as listed by the Applicants on Page 24], but there is no reference to cleaning of ‘porch roofs’.

[305]The Applicants’ photographs taken between March 2019 and February 2024 show that the short gutters on the edge of the porch on Block 7-12 generally do not appear to be clear, but no photographs are produced to show the main gutters of the building at upper roof level. These lower gutters, although dirty, are not completely blocked, and it is impossible to see how much cleaning has been done to the guttering overall.

[306]The Tribunal noted that there were other photographs produced by the Respondent at Page 655 of the bundle, which appear to show gutters that are quite clean after the Sentinel visit in April 2023. It was accepted (as averred by the Applicants) that these particular photographs may have been of the other blocks, or of the main roof guttering rather than the porches, but they nevertheless show that some, at least, of the work was done to a good standard.

[307]In the service charge accounts for the year 2023-2024 [Page 199], there is a figure of £2,540 allocated for ‘Gutter cleaning’. There are two invoices which make up the total figure, because both sets of works have fallen just within the same 12-month period. These invoices are as follows; -• the Sentinel invoice [Page 578] dated 18th April 2023 for ‘cleaning the gutters and downpipes’ of all 4 blocks at a cost of £1,440 (including £200 VAT), (Note: there is no mention of cleaning porches or roof tiles in this invoice), and

• a Proclean invoice [Page 656] dated 2nd February 2024 for £1,100, which gives a breakdown of £155 per building for the gutters and a total cost of £120 for cleaning moss off all 4 porch roofs.

[308]The Applicants have exhibited photos numbered 13 and 14 (taken in April and June 2023) which confirm that the porch roof tiles were not cleared of moss by Sentinel as part of their work.

[309]Photographs 17 and 18 show that both porch gutters and porch roof of Block 7-12 were clean and clear after the Proclean visit in February 2024.

[310]The Applicants highlighted and contrasted the lower cost of the Pro-Clean works in comparison to the Sentinel invoice, and they told the Tribunal that they regarded the latter company’s work as superior and their charge as reasonable.

[311]The Tribunal considered that it was not possible to make a direct comparison between the two companies without seeing a detailed specification or description of methods employed and equipment used, and no finding was made that the Sentinel invoice was unreasonable or excessive.

[312]In respect of the gutter-cleaning charges for the period from 2018 – 2023, it was noted By the Tribunal that the later ‘agreed’ Pro-clean invoice referred to a breakdown cost of ‘£155 per block’ for a full gutter-clean, which would total £620 for the whole development. It thus seems that the Applicants were paying a comparatively low rate (at £275/276 p.a.) during this period.

[313]The Tribunal finds on the evidence that the gutter-cleaning works were done to a reasonable standard during the years 2018 – 2023, and the Applicant’s share of the cost (at approximately £11 per annum) was also reasonable. It is determined that these figures are payable in full.

[314]As for the gutter clearing costs during the year 2023-2024, the Sentinel invoice from April (for £1,440 plus VAT), equates to a basic cost of £300 per block.

[315]Given the height of the buildings and the nature of the work, together with the photographs of clean guttering at main roof level, the Tribunal finds that the Sentinel work was done to a reasonable standard and it is determined that the cost – for a once-yearly service - is reasonable and payable.

[316]In respect of the Proclean invoice, the Tribunal is also satisfied that the work was done to a reasonable standard, and it is determined that the cost is payable in full.

[317]The Applicants make a claim for damages to one of their internal walls, which was allegedly caused by inadequate gutter-cleaning. The Tribunal did not consider that there was sufficient evidence of causation for any finding to be made on this point, or for any offset against the service charges. k) Window cleaning

[318]The Tribunal considered the Applicants’ photographs and the complaints about the standard of work.

[319]Firstly, the lease requires the landlord to clean the exterior of the windows: there is no obligation to clean the sills, which may require different cleaning tools and materials.

[320]Secondly, the amount of time and money allocated to this service is modest, as shown by the Applicants’ table at Page 24. The annual charge is between £686 (in 2018-2019) and £780 (in 2024-2025). The highest and most recent figure works out at approximately £15 per week, or £65 per month for the whole development, for all the windows in all the blocks. The Applicant’s share of this equates to £32.50 per annum, or 62 pence per week.

[321]Regardless of the Applicants’ criticisms of the behaviour and efficiency of the contractors, the Tribunal finds that the work was done to a reasonable standard in the circumstances, and it is determined that this cost is reasonable and payable in full for each of the relevant years. l) General Maintenance and Repairs

[322]In respect of the three largest figures on the list at Page 25, the Applicants’ submissions were as follows: -• £2,260 - Signal Solutions 26th February 2022 [Page 591, for replacing aerials on two of the blocks] – ‘not reasonable’.

• £2,590 - Signal Solutions 26th February 2022 [Page 592, for the remaining blocks] - ‘not reasonable/required- work done in 2015 lesser cost.’

• £1,968 - ASL ‘no response to letter dated 20.05.25.’

[323]The Applicant had referred to a lower invoice for £1,037.90 from Woking Aerials, dated 21st April 2015 [Page 593], but the Tribunal noted that this invoice referred to works at one block only, block 7-12. It is hardly surprising that the cost of a full replacement system of aerials to the entire development, with use of scaffolding etc., (as per the detailed specification) was considerably greater seven years later, in 2022.

[324]The Tribunal finds that the costs of the first two items on this list were reasonably incurred, and determines that the costs are payable by the Applicants in full.

[325]The third, ‘ASL’ bill was challenged largely on the basis that there was insufficient information about the works, and the landlords and their agents had not obtained competitive estimates for such a ‘high cost job’ or consulted the Applicants about it.

[326]In their letter to THMC dated the 20th of May 2025 [Page 378/9] the Applicants referred to the ASL invoice (number 75536) and demanded answers to 13 questions about the nature and extent of the works and the way in which ASL had been instructed.

[327]As this particular invoice was for significantly less than £250 per flat (or £6,000 in total), the Tribunal finds that the consultation requirements of Section 20 of the 1985 Act did not apply. The landlords are obliged to maintain communal structures such as pipes, sewers and drains under the lease, and the Applicants failed to establish that these costs were not reasonably incurred.

[328]The Tribunal therefore determines that the Applicants’ contribution or share of the cost, at £80, is reasonable and payable.

[329]In summary, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s evidence that all costs on this list of invoices for ‘General Maintenance and Repairs’ were reasonably incurred in the course of carrying out the landlord’s obligations under the Lease. The Tribunal did not find that the Applicants had satisfied them that any of the remaining items on this list were unreasonable, and therefore it is determined that all these costs are payable. m) Lighting and Electrical

[329]The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the Respondents that there was no duplication of works in this category, and that there had been numerous problems with external lighting and bulbs failing.

[330]Even a call-out charge, with or without parts and labour, is generally significant, and the Tribunal determines that these costs are reasonable and payable in full by the Applicants. n) Communal bin cleaning

[331]The Tribunal accepted the Applicants’ evidence that sometimes the bins had not been emptied before the contractors came, and therefore the ‘cleaning’ had consisted merely of hosing down the outside of the bins rather than cleaning them properly with the machine.

[332]However, the total cost of this service was £1,045.20 in 2023-2024 and £1,256.40 in 2024-2025, which equates to roughly £20 and £24 per week respectively. The Applicants’ share of these costs amounts to approximately 80 pence per week in the first year and £1 per week in the second.

[333]The issue over full bins could be resolved easily by asking the managing agents politely (and briefly) to request that the contractors attend for cleaning the day after the bins are usually emptied.

[334]In the circumstances the Tribunal finds that these costs were reasonably incurred and the service was to a reasonable standard for the price paid. It is determined that this element of the service charges is payable in full by the Applicants. COSTS AND ADMIN CHARGES

[335]As a result of the Applicant’s challenges to the service charges, their total liability over the seven-year period has been reduced by just over £300. This figure represents approximately 4% of the total amount payable.

[336]The Administration charges from the County Court proceedings have already been disallowed and refunded to the Applicants. That leaves the more recent costs and administrative expenses for determination.

[337]Given the limited success of the Applicants’ challenges to their service charges, the Tribunal allows a 5% discount to the amount that the Respondent landlord can recover in respect of the costs of these proceedings and other Administration expenses. 95% of the Respondent’s costs and charges are payable by the Applicants. CONCLUSION

[338]Sadly, in this case there seems to have been a lack of the ‘good neighbourliness and common sense’ which the Court of Appeal referred to in the Embassy Court decision. It is apparent that, although there were a few justified challenges to some elements of the service charges payable by the Applicants, and some reasonable questions about the cost and extent of works done, the sheer volume and tone of the Applicants’ correspondence added to the workload of those dealing with the Respondent company’s business, and deterred any others (apart from Ms. Ricketts) from becoming Directors and sharing the responsibility.

[339]The remaining Directors of THMC felt unable to continue running the property as amateurs and volunteers, and they took the reasonable decision to employ a managing agent to act on their behalf.

[340]The Tribunal was satisfied that, despite some criticisms, errors and failings on their part, the staff of Sennen were acting in good faith in respect of their management of Thornfield Green, and overall their handling of the business was done to a reasonable standard and for a reasonable fee.

[341]Overall, the Tribunal was quite satisfied that all the service charges determined above as reasonable and payable are recoverable from the tenants in accordance with the terms of the Leases. FINAL FIGURES

[342]The sums payable by the Applicants for the years in dispute are therefore as follows: - Year 2018 – 2019 £871.63 - Payable immediately. (Note: The Applicants’ contribution to the Management fee is capped at £100. The fee for Company Secretary and contributions to the Directors’ and Officers’ insurance have been deducted, together with Banking fees.) Year 2019 – 2020 £969.42 - Payable once the year’s accounts are certified (as per the Lease, discussed above) and once a demand giving the correct landlord’s address is served. (Note: the fee for Company Secretary and the contributions to Directors’ and Officers’ insurance and Banking fees have been deducted. However, additional fees for certification of the accounts, as per the Tribunal’s ruling on interpretation of the Lease, will be due.) Year 2020 – 2021 £955.96 - Payable once the year’s accounts are certified and once a demand giving the correct landlord’s address is served. (Note: the fee for Company Secretary and the contributions to Directors’ and Officers’ insurance, together with Banking fees and costs of Out of Hours telephone service, have been deducted. Additional fees for certification will be due.) Year 2021 – 2022 £983.59 - Payable once the year’s accounts are certified and once a demand giving the correct landlord’s address is served. (Note: the fee for Company Secretary and the contributions to Directors’ and Officers’ insurance, together with Banking fees and costs of Out of Hours telephone service, have been deducted. Additional fees for certification will be due. Year 2022 – 2023 £1,040.25 - Payable once the year’s accounts are certified and once a demand giving the correct landlord’s address is served. (Note: the fee for Company Secretary and the contributions to Directors’ and Officers’ insurance, together with Banking fees and costs of Out of Hours telephone service, have been deducted. Additional fees for certification will be due.) Year 2023 – 2024 £1,053.65 - Payable once the year’s accounts are certified and once a demand giving the correct landlord’s address is served. (Note: the fee for Company Secretary and the contributions to Directors’ and Officers’ insurance, together with Banking fees and costs of Out of Hours telephone service, have been deducted. Additional fees for certification will be due.) Year 2024 - 2025 £1,132.66 - Payable forthwith.

[343]These figures are all payable by the Applicants as above, less any amounts already paid during the relevant period. ******************************************* Final note: The parties should be reassured that the Tribunal has heard and carefully considered all of the evidence and submissions, and read all of the materials they were presented with. This decision focusses on the key facts and details that had to be taken into account in order to determine the issues. Right to Appeal

[1]A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper 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.