Marlon Davids and Yogeeta DavidsApplicantStephen Clacy and Wendy NunnRespondent
Before
Judge H. CarrN/A for the ApplicantMr Stephen Woolf of Counsel. For the determination of the liability to for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 10 January 2023Property: Beckenham BR3 4DAType of application: pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Judge H. Carr
DECISION
Covid-19 pandemic: description of hearing This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing P:PAPERREMOTE,. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all issues could be determined in on paper. The documents that I was referred were extensive and not all contained in a bundle. I have noted all the documents received. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. Decisions of the tribunal(1) The tribunal determines to reduce the service charges challenged on the Scott Schedule by the applicants by a total of £ 679.59 which is broken down as follows; 2013 - £72 which relates to management charges = £72 2014 - £116 which relates to profession fees and £16 which relates to management charges= £132 2015 - £16 which relates to management charges = £16 2016 - £16 which relates to management charges = £16 2017 - £3.33 – a concession by the respondent and £16 for management charges= £19.33 2018 - £13.80 a concession by the respondent, £10.00 a concession by the respondent and £14.96 further concession by respondent – making £38.76 in concessions plus £42.67 relating to electrical charges and £16 which relates to management fees = £97.43 2019 - £233.83 relating to groundworks and £29.46 in relation to management charges = £263.29 2020 - £23.31 for rubbish clearance and £6.67 concession by the respondent and £22.08 for management charges = £52.06 2021 – £11.54 concession by the respondent = £11.54(2) The tribunal determines to grant the respondent’s application for dispensation from statutory consultation charges(3) The tribunal determines that service charges demands were served(4) The tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision(5) The tribunal makes an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 so that none of the landlord’s costs of the tribunal proceedings may be passed to the lessees through any service charge.(6) The tribunal determines that the Respondent shall pay the Applicant £300 within 28 days of this Decision, in respect of the reimbursement of the tribunal fees paid by the Applicant. The application[1]The Applicants seek a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) [and Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”)] as to the amount of service charges [and (where applicable) administration charges] payable by the Applicants in respect of the service charge years The hearing[2]It was agreed between the parties and with the tribunal at the CMH on 21st July 2022 that the matter would be decided on the papers provided by the parties. The background[3]The property which is the subject of this application is a one bedroom flat on the first floor of a Victorian building known as Ripon House converted into 9 flats. Adjoining Ripon House is a further extension Ripley House which provides a further 4 flats.[4]Neither party requested an inspection and the tribunal did not consider that one was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute.[5]The Applicant holds a long lease of the property which requires the landlord to provide services and the tenant to contribute towards their costs by way of a variable service charge. The specific provisions of the lease and will be referred to below, where appropriate.[6]The tribunal has held a number of hearings prior to this paper determination.[7]There were directions hearings on November 15th 2021[8]The matter was set down for a hearing on 21st April 2022. The parties were unrepresented at that hearing. The tribunal expressed concerns that the Scott Schedule prepared by the Applicants did not reflect issues raised at earlier directions hearing and that the Respondent had not completed the relevant columns of the Scott Schedule.[9]As a result of a concession by the Applicants the tribunal determined that the insurance demands were payable and reasonable and the tribunal made a determination to that effect.[10]The tribunal then set the matter down for a reconvened hearing. It was listed for two days, June 16th and June 17th 2022. The Respondent was represented at that hearing by Mr Woolf of counsel and did not himself attend. There continued to be a lack of clarity about the Scott Schedule and three problems emerged that prevented the tribunal from being able to determine the application over those two days;(i) some of the service charges that appeared to have been demanded had not in fact been demanded but related to another property,(ii) works may have been carried out which were above the statutory consultation limit although this was not apparent from the invoices provided by the Respondent and(iii) there was no evidence available to the tribunal that service charges demands had been served in the correct statutory form.[11]The tribunal then held a CMH on 21st July 2022 and issued further directions on 17th August 2022.[12]At the CMH the parties agreed to the decision being made on the basis of paper submissions. The tribunal considered the papers on 6th October 2022.[13]Very usefully for the CMH Mr Woolf had prepared a consolidated Scott Schedule. The matter was set down for a determination on the basis of papers provided and the Applicants were given an opportunity to provide a response to the consolidated Scott Schedule.[14]The Respondents were given the opportunity to make legal submissions in connection with the statutory consultation required for any major works which the Applicants were given an opportunity to responds to.[15]The consolidated Scott Schedule with the Applicants’ responses, the legal submissions and the Applicants reply are the documents which the Tribunal considered in reaching this determination. The issues[16]At the start of the hearing the parties identified the relevant issues for determination as follows:(i) The payability and/or reasonableness of service charges for years 2013 - 2021 relating to in particulara. Whether invoices were genuine and/or related to the propertyb. Whether charges were fair, reasonable and accurate(ii) Whether statutorily compliant service charge demands had been served(iii) Whether there was a requirement for consultation in connection with works carried out to the property and if so whether there should be dispensation from consultation.[17]Having heard evidence and submissions from the parties and considered all the documents provided, the tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as follows. The reasonableness and payability of items challenged on the Scott Schedule[18]There are two general points that the Tribunal wishes to make in connection with the numerous challenges to service charges set out in the consolidated Scott Schedule amplified by the response by the Applicants dated[19]First the Applicants make several allegations of fraud. The Tribunal cautioned the Applicants about this during the hearing and suggested that the evidence they provided did not amount to fraud and that they should desist from making such allegations. It was not helpful to the Tribunal. For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal makes it clear that there was no evidence that the Respondent had been fraudulent.[20]It is insufficient to claim that companies do not exist, do not have websites etc, as there are often valid reasons for using firms which are not incorporated, do not pay VAT and do not have a virtual presence. When these assertions have been made in the Scott Schedule as reasons for challenge they have all been treated as inadequate. Nor can the Applicants simply assert that charges are unreasonable, excessive etc. Clear evidence has to be provided.[21]On the other hand there was evidence that the Respondent was cavalier with his invoicing and his accounts and his attitude throughout the hearing appears to have been resentful and even angry that the Applicants are challenging the service charge. It would be very useful in future if the Respondent accepted that the Applicants have a right to challenge charges and that there is an expectation that landlords behave professionally and provide clear explanations and clear accounts of how leaseholders’ money is being spent. The tribunal’s decision[22]The tribunal determines that the amount payable in respect of the service charges challenged be reduced by £670.59 . Reasons for the tribunal’s decision[23]The parties are referred to the completed Scott Schedule attached as Appendix 1. Have statutorily compliant service charge demands been served?[24]This issue arose during the course of proceedings when the Tribunal noted the lack of statutorily compliant service charge demands in the documents provided.[25]The Applicants say that on 22nd August 2022 they received an email from the Respondent with a letter attached from LMD Management stating that they sent Service Charge demands with the necessary statutory notices and a letter attached from Bowden Property Investments Limited also stating that they attached the statutory notices.[26]The Applicants say that prior to that date they had never seen those documents . They say they only ever received Applications of Payments with nothing accompanying them. They say that had they received them they would have been attached into the bundle alongside the Application for Payments that are included.[27]The Respondent provided a letter from LMD management dated 19th July 2022 who were managing the property during the years ending 5th April 2013 – 2015. LMD management say that the company was growing rapidly during that period and staff members were sent frequently on industry training course. All Applications for Payment and Ground Ren were accompanied by statutory notices and it was, and still is, the final check we make before stuffing envelopes ready for dispatch.[28]The Respondent also provided a letter dated 15th July 2022 from Bowden Property Investments Limited saying that during its period of management of Ripon House, applications for payment were accompanied by one or other of the attached statutory notices.[29]The Respondent also provides a statement that says that they own a substantial portfolio and whilst there have inevitably been challenges from leaseholders which have come before the Tribunal in one of those cases has it been found that there had been a failure to serve a valid demand by failing to enclose the Summary of Rights The tribunal’s decision[30]The tribunal determines that statutorily compliant service charge demands have been served. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision[31]The tribunal is faced with the situation where it has to decide who to believe on the balance of probabilities whether statutorily compliant service charge demands have been sent. The Applicants are adamant that they were not sent and the Tribunal notes that the Respondents are the directors of Bowden Property Investments Limited. The Tribunal has no doubt that the Applicants sincerely believe that they have not received such notices. However the Respondent is equally adamant that it has sent them via one of the two companies who have managed the property over the relevant years. Bearing in mind that it was the Tribunal itself that raised the issue and not the Applicants, and that there is no evidence from any other leaseholder in the property that notices have not been sent the tribunal determines to accept the evidence from the Respondent that the proper demands were served. Dispensation from the requirements of s.20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985[32]The Applicants said that some of the invoices presented were for works which together required statutory consultation and that no statutory consultation had taken place.[33]They say that the Landlord has failed on multiple occasions to serve the correct section 20 notices due to his own mismanagement and failure to comply with the law. assert that they have suffered prejudice.[34]They submitted that from 2013 – 2021 the building has had the following costs spent on it in total: JOB 1 – Fire Safety Testing - £2,604.00 JOB 2 – Works in flat 8 - £2,138.00 JOB 3 – Roof works - £20,555.00 JOB 4 – Works in flat 2 - £11,227.54 JOB 5 – Drainage work - £12,255.81 Job 6 – Works in flat 6 - £3,636.00 JOB 7 – Rubbish removal - £8,524.67 JOB 8 – Works in flat 1 - £866.00 JOB 9 – Works in flat 9 - £1,429.40 JOB 10 – Electrical works - £11,539.73[35]They say that they have done their best to be accurate.[36]Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the way in which the Applicants have aggregated works is almost impenetrable and the Tribunal agrees. However it should also be noted that if the invoices had been dealt with in a transparent manner there would have been no need for the Applicants to do the works of aggregation.[37]Counsel submit that of the 10 sets of works which the Applicants describe as JOBs on two, those identified as 4 and 6 fall into the category of being Major Works.[38]He says that is because JOBs 1,2,3,5,7.8.9 and 10 are not Major Works. It is submitted by Counsel that the Applicants have wrongly joined together works of a similar nature over the course of many years and argued that they are major works.[39]He points out that for works to be major works for the purposes of statutory consultation they must evidence at least two of the four characteristics:(i) They must be works contiguous to rather than be physically removed from each other, and/or(ii) Subject to the same contract; and/or(iii) Done more or less at the same time; and/or(iv) be of the same character and have a connection to one another.[40]In Counsels submissions 1,2,3,5,7,8.9.and 10 fail as they cannot be said to fall into at least two of the four categories.[41]In connection with JOBs 4 and 6 Counsel points out that the applicable test is for the Tribunal to determine whether it can be satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation by considering whether the tenant will suffer real prejudice in that(a) they have either paid for inappropriate works or(b) are paying more than would be appropriate.[42]Counsel agrees that section 20 Notices should have been served in connection with JOBs 4 and 6 but 4 In respect of JOBs 4 and 6, it is submitted that Section 20 Notices should have been served, but that:(i) in respect of JOB 4, the relevant costs exceeded the threshold by £15.33 (see page 61 of Scott Schedule);(ii) in respect of JOB 6, the relevant costs exceeded the threshold by £52.40 (see page 82 of Scott Schedule);(iii) The tenants have not suffered any real prejudice because even had here been a consultation process, the works would have been carried out by the landlord’s preferred contractor;(iv) The tenants would not have been able to find a significantly cheaper cost for these works;(v) ‘Relevant prejudice’ must be financial. The question to be asked is whether the tenants suffered financially in that has the failure to consult resulted in the landlord spending unreasonable amounts and visiting those costs upon the tenant;(vi) Having not had the opportunity to make representations about the proposed works, the tenants have to identify what they would have said The tribunal’s decision[43]The tribunal determines that only JOB 4 and JOB 6 attract statutory consultation requirements.[44]The tribunal determines to dispense with requirement for statutory consultation in respect of JOB 4 and JOB 6 on condition that the costs incurred by the Respondent for this aspect of the application are borne by the Respondent and not added to the service charge. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision[45]Through no fault of their own the applicants have failed to understand what is required for work to attract statutory consultation. The information provided does not suggest that all of the work identified should have been consulted upon.[46]The tribunal agrees with the Respondent that of all the JOBs identified by the Applicants only JOB 4 and JOB 6 require statutory consultation.[47]The Tribunal also agrees with the Respondent that the Applicants have failed to show the necessary financial prejudice required by Daejan v Benson [2013] UKSC 14[48]However it also takes from Daejan the understanding that asking the Tribunal to dispense with consultation is a privilege - what Lord Neuberger at paragraph 61 of the decision describes as a ‘statutory indulgence’.[49]It notes that the reason that this issue emerged is because of the haphazard way service charges for works have been levied. If there had been clarity, there would have been no need for the application. As it is clarity has only been achieved at a very late stage in the proceedings and therefore the Tribunal has determined to exercise its discretion to dispense with statutory consultation conditionally, imposing the condition that the Respondent must bear his own costs in making this application. Application under s.20C and refund of fees[50]At the end of the hearing, the Applicant made an application for a refund of the fees that he had paid in respect of the application and hearing . Having heard the submissions from the parties and taking into account the determinations above, the tribunal orders the Respondent to refund any fees paid by the Applicant.[51]the Applicant applied for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Taking into account the determinations above, the tribunal determines that despite its relatively low level of reduction of the service charge demands that it is just and equitable in the circumstances for an order to be made under section 20C of the 1985 Act, so that the Respondent may not pass any of its costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the tribunal through the service charge. This is because until relatively late in the proceedings there was very little clarity about the amounts demanded and it has required a tribunal determination to settle the dispute. Name: Judge H Carr Date: 10th January 2023 Rights of appeal By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Appendix 1 SCHEDULE DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2012-2021 Case Reference: LON/00AF/LSC/2021/0329 Premises: Flat 5 Ripon House 254 Croydon Road Beckenham BR3 4DA Item Cost (£) APPORTIONED TO FLAT 5 (£) ACCEPTED BY FLAT 5 (£) Tenants’ Comments * Landlords’ Comments * Leave Blank (for the tribunal) 2013 Mr Snazell SC-2013-005 & 012 (part) Plus 12 invoices with no invoice number pp. R106 – R118 2,920.00 208.57 208.57 When calculating this, we found it fair and reasonable when split between 14 flats over 12 months. Amounts to £208 for this year. We are happy to pay this. The invoices of Mr Snazell are identified by a number at the top right-hand corner of each page. Otherwise agreed. Agreed payable and reasonable Mr Snazell SC-2013-007 p. R121 45.00 5.00 0.00 Happy to pay our contribution to this once we have seen the before and after pictures as mentioned in the invoice. No invoice date. When was this work carried out? It will likely be impossible to locate photographs after the effluxion of 10 years. The Tenants are correct in stating that, there is no invoice date on Mr Snazell’s invoice. It would be fair to surmise that paperwork was not among Mr Snazell’s stronger points. The invoice arrived with the Managing Agent on 14 November 2012 and was paid on 29 November 2012. There is handwritten annotation on the invoice to this effect. Of the £85.00 charged for works to the water supplies, only £45.00 was apportioned to Ripon House because there was a suspicion that the tank in question also served at one of the flats in Ripley House and Flat 254A. We do not have photographs on file and would respectfully suggest that, a decade ago in 2012, it was not common practice for contractors, or even individuals, to swap photographs taken on mobile ‘phones. The tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable despite lack of evidence required by Applicants. This challenge relates to a small charge from a long time ago. It is not reasonable to expect the Respondent to produce the evidence the applicants demand now. Assured Preservations SC-2013-006 Deposit for works to be carried out as per report number 10099. p. R120 1,918.00 106.56 0.00 We do not accept this invoice because the invoice has no information about what work was needed or carried out. We’d like to see the report. Invoice (and report provided by Mr Woolf at last hearing from Assured Preservations) only refers to flat 254a, that is Ripley House and not Ripon House. Mr Clacy's response on Scotts Schedule response also confirms the work is for Flat A. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. Works arose from a complaint made by Ms Isobel King of 254A on 2 November 2012 of suspected rising damp. Specialist waterproof plastering and the injection of a retrospective chemical damp-proof course took place in the following areas: Bathroom; Internal lobby at pavement level; and Ground floor bedroom. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The work was carried out in Flat 254A, which because of the unusual building layout, “bridges” between Ripon and Ripley Houses over 3 floors. This is the reason why, in the Service Charge account to 5 April 2013 (shown at p. R39 of the Landlords’ Bundle of 21 April 2022), the works were described as, “Damp proof works effecting both Ripley and Rippon”. Costs were split equally between the two buildings (£959.00 each) and the apportionment of £106.56 to Flat 5 then calculated by dividing £959.00 by 9 (the number of flats in Ripon House). There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent J Batts Scaffolding SC-2013-008 Access Tower p. R122 260.00 28.88 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Why was this work needed? Invoice doesn’t specify size, height and type of scaffolding required. The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House and there is no website for us to see what this company specialise in. We have a quote for a scaffolding tower lowest price £45.80 per week, highest price 174.50 for a week – source: lakeside-hire.co.uk Why was the scaffolding put up 3 weeks before work started? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. A scaffold was required for access to the main roofs of Ripon House. The contractor was a sole trader of some 20 years standing and would therefore not appear at Companies House. The scaffold was 8 metres in height and bridged over the front porch. Self-assembly towers are neither appropriate nor safe for work in this area. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The scaffold was erected several weeks prior to works commencing so that, the Landlords’ surveyors could inspect the roofs, specify remedial works and then invite contractors to site to inspect and obtain the most competitive price for leaseholders. This practice is not unusual; even with the best binoculars or zoom lens, there is no substitute for having building elements at one’s fingertips. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the argument of the Respondent in connection with the need for scaffolding. The tribunal notes that the challenge is from a long time ago and that it is for the Applicants to prove their case. The lack of information at Companies House and the lack of a website are not determinative of reasonableness. AWR Roofing SC-2013-009 p. R123 SC-2013-011 p. R126 1,070.00 260.00 118.88 28.88 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Why was this work carried out? Do you have any reports or pictures to show why the roof needed renewing? The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House. No website so we can’t check their work. Why was this work needed? You didn't respond to our questions in the Scotts Schedule. Why are we paying for work in flat 8? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. AWR Roofing is not a limited company and therefore would not appear at Companies House. Works were requested by Ms Tessa Bird of Flat 8, who was experiencing water ingress to her demise. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The works described at SC-2013-009 were required because the leaseholder of Flat 8 had reported water ingress to her bedroom, kitchen and living room. The coverings to the dormer over the kitchen, and the lining of the upper valley, had reached the end of their service lives. The works described at SC-2013-011 were required because water was leaking both into the porch and into Flat 1. It was the leaseholder of Flat 1 who brought the matter to the attention of the Managing Agent. The Landlords covenant to maintain the roofs at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable. The fact that the works are recorded as relating to flat 8 is not relevant here as the leaseholders have a collective responsibility for the roof repairs. Central Communications SC-2013-010 Plus 1 Invoice with no number pp. R124 & R125 170.00 670.00 93.33 93.33 What system was installed? And what lock was installed? Invoice doesn’t specify this so we can’t check for whether this charge is fair or reasonable. I contacted the number on the invoice and a lady answered and when I asked about the company she told me it was a wrong number – why is this? the company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there is no website so we can’t see what work they carry out. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Central Communications is not a limited company and and therefore would not appear at Companies House. The business, owned by Mr Gwinnett, is still active and we continue to use their services across our portfolio because work is carried out to a very high standard at prices we have found hard to match. The need for work is clearly explained in invoice CL2021 and then executed under invoice CL2037. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal determines that this is payable and reasonable. This cost has been accepted by the Applicants. Andrew Harris SC-2013-012 Clear bin area of excess waste p. R128 200.00 14.28 0.00 We do not accept this invoice; we do not believe that this amount is genuine and that the work took place. There is no invoice number on the invoice from the company. We believe this to be a friend of Mr MacEvoy’s. This company is registered to an address a few doors away from Mr MacEvoy. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris dated 3 June 2022. The presence of excess waste in the bin area was noted by the Managing Agent during a routine inspection on 2 November 2012. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal determines that this amount is payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent in this matter. The Tribunal notes that this is a very small cost. LMD Management SC-2013-013 Management Charge p. R129 1,800.00 200.00 120.00 Is this reasonable? We do not accept this because the property is not being managed well. We aren’t being informed with enough notice of works taking place and the costs. We believe we are being invoiced from companies that do not exist and are being invoiced from companies that aren’t genuine and with amounts that aren’t genuine. The management of the building is poor which can be reflected in the witness statements and seen in photos. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. In the matter of whether companies are genuine, we draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statements set out at Pages R5 – R17 of our bundle of 21 April 2022 and to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022 attached hereto. We also draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Contact Sheets of 1,350 photographs, which show a fraction of works undertaken over the last 10 years. The property requires an exceptional amount of management. A charge of £128 per unit is reasonable. The Tribunal determines that £128 for management costs are payable and reasonable. There is no direct evidence from the Applicants of poor management. Drawing on the Tribunal’s professional knowledge this is within a reasonable band of charges for management. 2014 MPM Building Excellence Professional fees SC-2014-005 p. R136 SC-2014-006 p. R137 SC-2014-007 p. R138 SC-2014-009 p. R140 SC-2014-011 p. R142 480.00 450.00 450.00 360.00 720.00 36.92 34.62 50.00 40.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices, they are not reasonable. They are from your ex-business partner, the works are expensive and exaggerated to benefit MPM and yourself. We’d like to see the report made by lessees Mr and Mrs King, the report from flat 8, the report from Flat 2 and all reports that these invoices claim to have been made. In respect of SC-2014-005 & 006:- Applies to Flat A Ripley house, not Ripon House In respect of SC-2014-007:- why are we paying for work in flat 8? Why does a surveyor need to attend? In respect of SC-2014-009:- Why are we paying for work in flat 8? In respect of SC-2014-011:- Why are we paying for work in Flat 2? Why were there 5 site visits? What was the total value of the work to incur such a high fee? Poor management? Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Dr MacEvoy of MPM Building Surveyors at Pages R7 and R8 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The invoices in question describe the surveying work carried out in detail and contain rather more information than we usually receive from other surveyors, engineers and project managers. We make no apology for employing reliable, experienced and knowledgeable staff to ensure that works are correctly specified and overseen. It is our experience that, when works are not overseen, contractor costs tend to rise while the quality of work falls. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. Invoices SC-2014-005 and SC-2014-006 are surveying invoices and pertain to damp-proofing works in Flat 254A. This flat, because of the unusual building layout, “bridges” between Ripon and Ripley Houses over 3 floors. Surveying costs were therefore apportioned between the buildings, as indeed was the contractor’s invoice. With the best will in the world, a Manging Agent does not have the skill-set to specify and oversee specialist damp-proofing works These projects invariably throw up issues with the underlying masonry substrate and adjacent floors (whether they be suspended timber or mass concrete). There are also often issues with the control of noise, dust and debris which need to be handled by an experienced surveyor. While a Managing Agent can field queries from residents and pass out works to contractors, surveyors and engineers, they cannot be expected to take responsibility for the oversight of works where they have no professional qualifications or indemnity insurance. Invoices SC-2014-007 and SC-2014-009 are surveying invoices and pertain to the investigation of penetrating damp to the bedroom, kitchen and living room of Flat 8 and the specification and supervision of remedial woks arising therefrom. A surveyor was required to pinpoint the areas of water ingress, assess the building externally and then direct a scaffolding company to erect a tower in a location where all of the likely weaknesses could be investigated. The water ingress was caused by failure of the dormer roof over the kitchen and upper valley lining, which the Landlords covenant to maintain. The surveyor oversaw the works and instructed a final water test, to ensure that works were satisfactory. Again, the Landlords cannot reasonably expect a Managing Agent to scale a scaffold and direct and scrutinise roofing contractors in their work; an Agent simply does not have this skill-set. We turn lastly to SC-2014-011, a surveying invoice that pertains to water ingress to the living room and kitchen of Flat 2. The leaseholder, Miss Milne, was herself a property manager for the Acorn Group and she asked that the Managing Agent investigate not only the nature and extent of the damp but also the possible contributory factors of defects in underground drainage in the driveway adjacent (the kitchen is in the basement) and the porch roof over the right-hand side of the living room. The surveyor made an initial visit and then met three contractors on site; a groundworker, a drainage specialist and a roofer. The surveyor then made a follow-up visit, on the morning of Saturday 11 May 2013, to explain the findings to Miss Milne. Surveying costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that these charges are reasonable and payable. The share of the Applicants is approximately £241 which appears proportionate or the work. The Tribunal again notes that this dates from a number of years ago and the Tribunal has limited evidence but accepts the submission of the Respondent. AWR Roofing SC-2014-008 p. R139 SC-2014-010 p. R141 330.00 480.00 36.66 53.33 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Last year this company sent an invoice for repairs on the dormer roof and upper level valley (no other details specified) and this year we are paying again for works on the same area? We’d like proof from the company that the work was carried out. The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House and there is no website for us to check what this company specialise in. In respect of SC-2014-008:- Roof works In respect of SC-2014-010:- Why are we paying for work in flat 8? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. AWR Roofing is not a limited company and therefore would not appear at Companies House. Works were requested by Ms Tessa Bird of Flat 8, who was experiencing water ingress to the living room of her demise. The work relates to the valley between the right-hand gable and front principal slope and augmenting weatherproofing to the abutment between the front dormer and front principal slope. These tasks are not a repetition of works carried out prior. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Landlords repeat that, works were requested by Ms Tessa Bird of Flat 8, who was experiencing water ingress to the living room of her demise (right-hand side as facing from the carriageway). The works relate to the valley between the right-hand gable and front principal slope and augmenting weatherproofing to the abutment between the front dormer and front principal slope. These tasks are not a repetition of works carried out prior. The work is not “in” Flat 8; it is to the roofs thereover. The Landlords covenant to maintain the roofs at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that these charges are payable and reasonable. It accepts the argument of the Respondent about the need for the works. h Surrey Groundworks SC-2014-012 p. R143 1,240.00 137.77 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. It is not reasonable and why is it being carried out? This company is another company owned by your ex-business partner and the works carried out are in preparation for the bungalow development at the back of the property which is nothing to do with Ripon or Ripley residents. Since you received our bundle with this evidence the website has been removed from the internet, why is this? We took screenshots of this information and was included in our bundle. Why are we paying for work in flat 2? why was this work needed? This company is owned by the surveyor - he is surveying the job and instructing himself on what job to carry out and then awaiting an inspection from himself? Mr MacEvoy owns Surrey Groundworks and MPM the surveying company. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr David Pearson of Surrey Groundworks at Page R12 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The works relate to cracked underground drainage to the left-hand side of the front porch, which had caused water ingress to the front of the kitchen of Flat 2 at lower ground floor level. The works pertain to Ripon and Ripley Houses and are not connected in any way to the land at the rear of the site, some 30 metres away. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. Invoice SC-2014-012 describes an exploratory dig to the left-hand side of the porch steps. The purpose of the dig was to investigate the possibility of defects in underground foul and surface water drainage contributing to penetrating damp at high level in the basement kitchen of Flat 2. While the symptoms of drainage defects were visible in Flat 2, the work itself was to underground drainage and this falls squarely within the Landlord’s repairing covenants at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. Neither Dr MacEvoy, nor any of the partners or more junior staff in his practice, have anything other than a professional relationship with Surrey Groundworks. This is made quite clear in the Witness Statement of Mr David Pearson of Surrey Groundworks at p. R12 of the Landlord’s bundle of 21 April 2022. We attach the same again at pp. F1 – F2 of the attached Appendix F, in case this Witness Statement has faded from view. We will not rehearse this argument again, because the assertion made by the Tenants is unhelpful, untrue and provocative. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. It notes that the works were carried out some time ago. It does not accept that the connection between the Respondent and the Applicant means that the charges are not payable/not reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent in particular in relation to the fact that the works related to the property and not to land to the rear of the site. Julian Agnew SC-2014-013 p. R146 676.00 52.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice because the company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website for us to see what this company actually do or proof that the work was carried out or required. Why was this work needed? Can we see photos? Why was this work needed? the lease specifies that lessees need to provide their own bin. Was this necessary? Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. The Lease allows for improvement at Clause 2(15). Julian Agnew was a former lessee of Flat 1. His business was not a limited company and therefore would not appear at Companies House. A bin store was required because residents, and the Council waste collection service, had been leaving wheeled bins haphazardly across the front drive. This was both unattractive and dangerous. The bin store is still standing, in good condition, and in use, at the time of writing. Photographs may be seen in several places in the Contact Sheets. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. A bin store was requested by the leaseholders of Flats 1, 2 and 6 of Ripon House, Flat 254A and Flat B, Ripley House. It does not, to the Landlords, seem unreasonable to accede to this request and thereby tidy and make safe the site. The Lease allows for improvement at Clause 2(15). There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charge for the bin store is payable and reasonable. It notes that the lease allows for improvements and accepts the argument and evidence of the Respondent. Andrew Harris SC-2014-015 p. R159 240.00 17.14 0.00 We do not accept this invoice, again no invoice number from the company? The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022. The presence of excess waste in the bin area was noted during a routine grounds maintenance visit. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent. LMD Management SC-2014-016 p. R160 2,925.00 225.00 120.00 Is this reasonable? We do not accept this because the property is not being managed well, we are being invoiced for companies that do not exist and being invoiced from companies that aren’t genuine and with amounts that aren’t genuine. The management of the building is poor which can be reflected in the witness statements. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. In the matter of whether companies are genuine, we draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statements set out at Pages R5 – R17 of our bundle of 21 April 2022 and to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022 attached hereto. We also draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Contact Sheets of 1,350 photographs, which show a fraction of works undertaken over the last 10 years. The property requires an exceptional amount of management. A charge of £209 per unit is reasonable. The Tribunal determines that £209 for LMD management charges is payable and reasonable. 2015 MPM Building Excellence Professional Fees SC-2015-004 p. R166 SC-2015-008 p. R172 SC-2015-009 p. R173 SC-2015-010 p. R174 SC-2015-012 p. R176 SC-2015-019 p. R184 450.00 480.00 594.00 540.00 360.00 720.00 50.00 53.33 66.00 60.00 40.00 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices, we do not believe this is genuine work on the property. They are from your ex-business partner, the works are expensive and exaggerated to benefit MPM. We’d like to see the reports and the requests from lessees for this work as stated in the invoices. In respect of SC-2015-004:- Why are we paying for work in flat 6? A surveyor wasn't needed for this. In respect of SC-2015-008:- The invoice states 'Issue to competitive tender' - Mr MacEvoy from MPM gave the work to his company Surrey Groundworks, this isn’t fair or ethical? In respect of SC-2015-009:- Why does this need an investigation? We live at flat 5 and an investigation is 'overkill' for the issue that we had resolved by our builder, a damp report wasn't necessary, it was due to some lose tiles from wear and tear that was resolved by a builder fitting a new bathroom. In respect of SC-2015-010:- We are not responsible for flat 2. Back to investigate the damp in flat 2 again? In respect of SC-2015-012:- Why can't the management company instruct the contractor? In respect of SC-2015-019:- Again you are instructing yourself to do the work - Barry at MPM instructing himself at Surrey Groundworks to do the work (invoice below - from Mr MAcEvoy to Mr MacEvoy) Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Dr MacEvoy of MPM Building Surveyors at Pages R7 and R8 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The invoices in question describe the surveying work carried out in detail and contain rather more information than we usually receive from other surveyors, engineers and project managers. We make no apology for employing reliable, experienced and knowledgeable staff to ensure that works are correctly specified and overseen. It is our experience that, when works are not overseen, contractor costs tend to rise while the quality of work falls. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. Invoice SC-2015-004 pertains to the investigation of water ingress to the internal lobby of Flat 6 from the bathroom of Flat 5 (owned at that time by Mr and Ms Davids of the Tenants). The leaseholder, Miss Inglis, had spoken to Mr and Mrs Davids and had not received the outcome both obviously needed and also prescribed by Mr and Mrs Davids’ repairing covenants. When the surveyor visited site, he found Flat 5 sub-let and the bathroom in poor condition. He set out detailed recommendations for works in Flat 5, which we attach at p. F3 of Appendix F. The water leak into Flat 6 was not simply a matter of ‘loose tiles’. SC-2015-008 describes surveying work to specify and oversee remedial works to underground drainage. The relationship between Surrey Groundworks and MPM Building Surveyors has been articulated above and may also be found at pp. F1 – F2 of Appendix F. Invoices SC-2015-010 and SC-2015-012 are invoices for surveying that pertain to further damp in the kitchen of Flat 2. The first is for inspecting and specifying the works and the second is for tendering and overseeing the works. Repairs to underground drainage externally had done little to improve matters. It was felt by both surveyor and the specialist damp-proofing company consulted that, such waterproofing measures as had existed at the time of conversion to the structural walls of the front of the kitchen had broken down. The failure had likely been exacerbated by hygroscopic salts leaching through masonry by capillary action. At SC-2015-19, the Landlords do not fully understand the point made by the Tenants. Only a fraction of the remedial work (gutters beneath the alcove around the front dormer) was carried out by Surrey Groundworks. The relationship between Surrey Groundworks and MPM Building Surveyors has been articulated above and may also be found at pp. F1 – F2 of Appendix F. Surveying costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines to reduce the MPM Building Excellence Professional Fees by £116. It does not consider the work charged for in R166 and R 173 required a surveyor but should have been carried out by the managing agent as part of its role. The Tribunal considers the other charges to be reasonable and payable. Assured Preservations SC-2015-011 p. R175 3,180.00 353.33 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. As one of 2 contactable companies, we contacted them to confirm the amount. Assured Preservations told us this isn’t an invoice from them as their invoice is different, but they did carry out some work in relation to the invoice number, but the price is nowhere near what you are invoicing residents. Assured Preservations sent us the original invoice for the job, and it is very different to the one you have sent, why is this? Why are you charging us for works that haven’t been done at a price that hasn’t been quoted? Why is this invoice not on headed paper? When speaking with staff at Assured Pres they told us that isn't their headed paper - all their invoices include their accreditations at the bottom. You have also invoiced for a different amount to what you paid them, how do you explain this? and why didn't you send Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. £3,180.00 was the sum paid in toto to Assured Preservations for the project. The Landlords are led to understand that this point was thrashed out in some detail during the Hearing of 16 and 17 June 2022, but may be mistaken and are happy to elucidate the matter further. We refer the Tribunal to Dr MacEvoy’s Supplementary Witness Statement of 16 June 2022 (now at pp. F4 – F6 of Appendix F) and the explanatory letter provided by Assured Preservations (p. F7 of Appendix F). It may be argued that, the apportionment to Flat 5 exceeds the Section 20 consultation threshold, hence the Landlords would be willing to make an Application to the Tribunal for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the LTA1985. The excess over the threshold to Flat 5 is £83.33. The Tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable. It deals with the retrospective dispensation from consultation requirements application elsewhere in the decision. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent in this matter. Drain View Ltd SC-2015-005 p. R167 720.00 80.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Why are we using companies that aren’t VAT registered? And another company that uses no invoice number? We’d like to see the CCTV of the work carried out as outlined in the invoice and the report to prove the work was done and why. This company has no website so we can’t check the work they do. We were living in our flat at this time, we never received one of the many letters you sent regarding this nor have the lessees. Can we see the letter that you sent? Do you have proof? electronically maybe? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. Drain View is a well-established, local company that numbers the campuses of Roehampton University among its clients. Companies, partnerships and individuals are only required to be registered for VAT if their turnover exceeds £85,000. Wherever possible, we use companies that are not registered for VAT to save money for leaseholders. We keep CCTV surveys for 12 months only because of the enormous volume of computer storage they consume. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Landlords do not fully understand the point that the Tenants make. The Landlords cannot produce photographs or CCTV footage from work that took place 8 years ago. The Landlords can, however, point to the explanation for the need for frequent cleansing of underground drainage given by Dr MacEvoy at p. F5 of Appendix F. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that this charge is reasonable and payable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent that the work was carried out and that it was necessary work. Northway Electrical Services SC-2015-013 p. R177 318.00 24.46 24.46 Can you provide proof of the work? Reasons for work and Inspection report? Happy to pay this once the information is provided. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Maintenance of Automatic Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting systems twice-yearly is a statutory requirement. There is no inspection report. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal determines that this charge is reasonable and payable. It notes that the Applicants accept the charge. J Batts Scaffolding SC-2015-015 p. R179 700.00 77.78 0.00 We do not accept this invoice, who carried out the work on the roof that the scaffolding was installed for? This company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. For works on flat 8 that Mr MacEvoy instructed. Nothing to do with our flat. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. A scaffold was required for access to the area beneath the front dormer window of Flat 8 and intermediate working lifts were also required. The contractor was a sole trader of some 20 years standing and would therefore not appear at Companies House. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The scaffold was erected for three principal reasons, none of which pertain to the demise of Flat 8. It was observed that, during heavy rain, regardless of the cleanliness of gutters, the rainwater goods beneath and to either side of the front dormer surcharged and water ran down the left- and right-hand and rear walls over the porch. The rainwater goods were replaced with ones of a larger profile, the dormer cill and lead weatherings abutting the same were re-configured and timber decay removed, and algal stains were cleaned from the surface of brickwork at lower levels. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that this charge is reasonable and payable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent. J Interiors SC-2015-017 p. R181 828.00 92.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice, we do not believe this work was genuine. The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. Why was this work needed? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. We direct the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr John Baker of J Interiors at Page R9 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Landlords respectfully direct the Tribunal to the explanation given above in respect of SC-2015-015. The Tribunal determines that this charge is reasonable and payable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent. Andrew Harris SC-2015-021 p. R197 200.00 14.28 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. We do not believe that the work was genuine. There is no proof that the work was carried out or required. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022 attached hereto. The presence of excess waste in the bin area was noted during a routine grounds maintenance visit. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal determines that this charge is reasonable and payable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent that the work was required and carried out. LMD Management SC-2015-022 p. R198 2,925.00 225.00 120.00 Is this reasonable? We do not accept this because the property is not being managed well, we are being invoiced for companies that do not exist and being invoiced from companies that aren’t genuine and with amounts that aren’t genuine. The management of the building is poor which can be reflected in the witness statements. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. In the matter of whether companies are genuine, we draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statements set out at Pages R5 – R17 of our bundle of 21 April 2022 and to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022 attached hereto. We also draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Contact Sheets of 1,350 photographs, which show a fraction of works undertaken over the last 10 years. The property requires an exceptional amount of management. A charge of £209 per unit is reasonable. The Tribunal determines that a charge of £209 for management is payable and reasonable. It draws on its own experience of management charges. 2016 Northway Electrical Services SC-2016-004 SC-2016-004/ 2 pp. R204 & R205 330.00 330.00 73.33 73.33 We do not accept this invoice. We do not believe that this company is genuine and nor is the invoice. Can we see the inspection report? Then we will be happy to pay. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Northway Electrical Services Ltd is a member of the NICEIC and this can be checked on the NICEIC website. Maintenance of Automatic Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting systems twice-yearly is a statutory requirement. There is no inspection report. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent. There is nothing to substantiate the concerns about the company put forward by the Applicants. Routine maintenance does not require an inspection report which would act to increase costs. J Interiors SC-2016-005 SC-2016-005 /2 pp. R206 & R207 SC-2016-007 p. R210 SC-2016-008 pp. R212 & R213 SC-2016-013 p. R218 290.00 290.00 2,388.00 1,512.00 120.00 44.47 265.33 168.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. SC-2016-007 requires work on the roof but no scaffolding? This amount is not reasonable – and within 6 months of that invoice, AWR Roofing are also carrying out roof works at a high price, why is so much work being carried out on the roof that no one can see? SC-2016-013 is for Ripley House. There is no proof that the work was carried out or required. Why is all this work needed? We believe this to be a friend on Mr MacEvoy’s. We do not believe that this invoice is genuine. The invoice description is very similar to the description invoiced to Drainview Ltd below. Why do we need this on the property twice? And why do both companies use the same wording in their descriptions? In respect of SC-2016-005 Why do we need twice yearly maintenance of rain water goods? Have there been any problems or overflow of the rain guttering to warrant us needing to pay for this. In respect of SC-2016-007 and 008:- Who instructed this work? why was it needed? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. Invoices SC-2016-005 and SC-2016-005/2 describe twice-yearly maintenance of rainwater goods. Invoice SC-2016-007 describes work to the porch, at low level, to replace perished lead catchpits - work that was mostly carried out from ladders. Invoice SC-2016-008 describes replacement of decayed rafters and wallplates. Invoice SC-2016-013 refers to freeing of the jammed front door to Ripley House. We do not understand how these tasks are related to AWR Roofing or Drain View Ltd. We do observe, however, that our surveyors issue standard specifications for small works and these often result in contractor invoices being very similar in wording. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. SC-2016-005 Parts 1 and 2 describe six-monthly cleansing of rainwater goods. There are two reasons for twice-annual rather than annual cleansing. These are: Firstly, the roof coverings of Ripon House are interlocking concrete tile, estimated to be around 40 years’ old. The tiles have a sand finish and, because of their age, the sand is being slowly washed off by rain. Secondly, there are two, very large Horse Chestnut trees at the front and rear of the site. One is within the curtilage of 252 Croydon Road and the other, at the rear of the property, in a commonway that serves houses on Westbury Road. Both trees have bleeding canker disease. The consequence is that gutters quickly become blocked with a mixture of silt and leaves. The walls of Ripon House are solid 9” red brick. The bricks are around 140 years’ old and now quite porous. This means that, if a gutter is blocked and rain runs down a wall for more than a few days, leaseholders experience damp internally. The building insurers are disinclined to accept claims for water damage arising, their reasoning being that the problem is obvious and rainwater goods should be maintained properly. The works described at SC-2016-007 and SC-2016-008 pertain to the renewal of aged lead catchpits to either side of the porch roof. When the lead linings to the catchpits were stripped away, timbers affected by wet rot and woodworm were discovered. This is explained on SC-2016-008 (invoice #3460A from J Interiors), which states: “N.B. This expense was unexpected, as there was no evidence of serious timber decay a priori from external viewing.” The Landlords concede that the apportionment to Flat 5 exceeds the consultation threshold by £15.33 and would be willing to make an Application to the Tribunal for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the LTA1985. The Tribunal determines that these charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. The Tribunal notes the invoice for £265.33 and makes a determination about the application for dispensation from consultation elsewhere in the decision. Drain View Ltd SC-2016-006 SC-2016-006/ 2 pp. R208 & R209 260.00 260.00 39.87 0.00 See above. We do not accept this invoice. Why are we using companies that aren’t VAT registered? We do not believe that this invoice is genuine and the works were not needed. Works underground that we can’t see, like the roof repairs. See above response in 2015 for Drainview – i.e. the comments made for J Interiors work to the rainwater goods Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The invoices refer to twice-yearly cleansing of underground drainage. We return to this subject below when addressing queries raised against Drain View invoices in 2018. In the matter of the need to cleanse underground drainage twice-annually, the Landlords respectfully refer the Tribunal to the comments made by Dr MacEvoy in his Supplementary Witness Statement at p. F5 of Appendix F. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that this charge is payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent and does not consider that the Applicants’ argument has substance. AWR Roofing SC-2016-009 p. R214 1,470.00 163.33 0.00 We do not accept this invoice, why was the work needed on the roof again? There is no proof that the work was carried out or required. Why did you not consult leaseholders - so much work on the roof, it may have been more cost effective to do some major works instead of constant repairs. Are you not advised of the state of the roof each time a company does works on the roof? are they not giving you advice on repairing the whole roof? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The roof was in need of re-covering because it had been stripped to renew rotten rafters and wallplates and perished catchpits. The new tile coverings are in plain view as one approaches the porch on foot from the pavement. As well as the main roof, Ripon House also has dormer and bay roofs, both front and rear, and a porch roof. To replace the aged roof coverings in their entirety, to include the thermal insulation required by Part L1B of the current Building Regulations, would cost in excess of £150,000 exclusive of VAT at the time of writing. Work of this magnitude cannot possibly be countenanced in the current economic climate, because the cost to each leaseholder, including professional fees, would be around £25,000. Even before the Pandemic, it seems far-fetched to believe that leaseholders would prefer this expense rather than spreading costs as and when the need for repairs arises. There will come a time when renewal of the roofs is justified, but we have not yet reached that time. The works carried out are in plain sight as one walks from the driveway entrance to the house, hence the suggestion that “there is no proof that work was carried out” is verging on the mendacious. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charge is payable and reasonable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent and the reasoning for not undertaking at this time a major roof replacement. MPM Building Excellence Professional Fees SC-2016-010 p. R215 SC-2016-011 p. R216 SC-2016-012 p. R217 SC-2016-014 p. R219 600.00 540.00 240.00 540.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices because they are from your ex-business partner, the works are expensive and exaggerated to benefit MPM. We’d like to see the reports and the requests from lessees for this work. In respect of SC-2016-010:- This charge is excessive Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Dr MacEvoy of MPM Building Surveyors at Pages R7 and R8 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The invoices in question describe the surveying work carried out in detail and contain rather more information than we usually receive from other surveyors, engineers and project managers. We make no apology for employing reliable, experienced and knowledgeable staff to ensure that works are correctly specified and overseen. It is our experience that, when works are not overseen, contractor costs tend to rise while the quality of work falls. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. Invoice SC-2016-010 pertains to surveying costs in respect of roofs at the front of the property. The fee includes 4 site visits and the design of connections between retained rafters, new rafter ends and wallplates. A fee note of £600.00 is more than reasonable; had the work been passed to a larger surveying practice, this figure would likely have been doubled for internal consultation with an engineer. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that these charges are reasonable and payable. The Tribunal has considered the invoices carefully and the witness statement of Dr MacEvoy. It accepts the evidence and argument of the Respondent. ADS & Associates Ltd SC-2016-016 p. R221 540.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this. What was the report for? Why did we need this? Can you provide the report for this? Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. The works carried out by the Engineer are stated on the invoice: “To inspect exposed brickwork externally to a four-storey structure to the rear extension to the main building and provision of a Written Report.” There was a concern that cracking to brickwork may be the result of subsidence due to desiccated clay sub-soil and nearby trees. The Engineer concluded that a more likely explanation was failure of steel lintols over window openings. The Tribunal does not make a determination on this charge as the Applicants have not been charged. Surrey Groundworks SC-2016-017 p. R222 450.00 34.50 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. This company is another company owned by your ex-business partner and the works carried out seem to be in preparation for the bungalow development at the back of the property which is nothing to do with Ripon or Ripley residents. Mr MacEvoy is carrying out drainage work that he has instructed his company to carry out? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The invoice describes the renewal of inspection chamber covers around the perimeter of the property. The works are unrelated to the site at the rear, where there are no inspection chambers at all. Drainage runs towards the front of the property, with the interceptor with the public sewer being in the lawn by the front boundary wall with the pavement. The Landlords repeat that, the invoice describes the renewal of inspection chamber covers around the perimeter of the building and is unrelated to the development plot at the rear. For the avoidance of any and all doubt, the Landlords attach the proposed drainage plan for the new development at p. F8 of Appendix F. Surface water is to be channelled into the existing drainline which runs beneath the car park of Azelia Hall and foul water into a new drainline running along the South-West flank of the building. The relationship between Surrey Groundworks and MPM Building Surveyors has been articulated above and may also be found at pp. F1 – F2 of Appendix F. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charge is payable and reasonable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent and does not accept the Applicants’ argument that this is about works for a bungalow development. Andrew Harris SC-2016-021 2 PARTS pp. R253 & R254 1,222.40 87.31 87.17 We do not accept this invoice. There are no invoice numbers for this company to reference. We do not believe this invoice is genuine. We’d like proof from the company that the work was carried out. The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House. No website. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022 attached hereto. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. This charge appears to have been accepted by the Applicants. For the benefit of the parties the Tribunal determines that the charge is payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the Respondent and does not consider that the argument of the Applicants has any merit. Bowden Property Investment SC-2016-022 p. R255 2,925.00 225.00 120.00 Is this reasonable? The management of the building is poor which can be reflected in the witness statements. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Contact Sheets of 1,350 photographs, which show a fraction of works undertaken over the last 10 years. The property requires an exceptional amount of management. A charge of £209 per unit is reasonable. The Tribunal determines that £209 is payable by the Applicants in connection for the management of the property. The Tribunal draws on its own knowledge of reasonable charges in connection with the management of similar properties. 2017 MPM Building Excellence Professional Fees SC-2017-005 p. R262 SC-2017-007 p. R264 SC-2017-008 p. R265 360.00 450.00 450.00 40.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices because they are from your ex business partner, the works are expensive and exaggerated to benefit MPM. We’d like to see all reports made for all of these invoices from MPM and lessees. In respect of SC-2017-005:- This is for Flat 6 In respect of SC-2017-007:- Attending flat 6 again, why so many visits? poor management In respect of SC-2017-008:- Works to flat 2 Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Dr MacEvoy of MPM Building Surveyors at Pages R7 and R8 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The invoices in question describe the surveying work carried out in detail and contain rather more information than we usually receive from other surveyors, engineers and project managers. We make no apology for employing reliable, experienced and knowledgeable staff to ensure that works are correctly specified and overseen. It is our experience that, when works are not overseen, contractor costs tend to rise while the quality of work falls. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. SC-2017-005 pertains to an investigation of penetrating damp at the West corner of the bedroom of Flat 6. The damp was found to arise from two issues: Firstly, a spalled masonry sub-cill to a window in the rear wall; and Secondly, a leak (by then resolved) from a defective external soil-and-vent pipe serving the rear of the building. SC-2017-007 describes surveying fees in respect of specifying, tendering and overseeing remedial works to the plastered surfaces of the bedroom of Flat 6 arising from the defects described above. A claim was made to the building insurers but repudiated on the grounds of “gradually operating cause”. SC-2017-008 pertains to an investigation of rising and penetrating damp to the structural walls of the kitchen and wine cellar of Flat 2. The areas in question were not those treated in November 2014. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal has considered the invoices carefully and considers that they are reasonable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent . Assured Preservations SC-2017-006 p. R263 SC-2017-009 p. R266 SC-2017-010 p. R267 1,716.00 2,721.60 1,612.80 190.67 302.40 179.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice, we contacted this company to confirm the amount. Assured Preservations told us this isn’t an invoice from them as their invoice is different, but they did carry out some work in relation to the invoice number, but the price is nowhere near what you are invoicing residents. Assured Preservations sent us the original invoice for the job, and it is very different to the one you are using, why? In respect of SC-2017-006:- Why did you send us an invoice with different amounts to the original one? Original invoice has been edited with a higher charge from you, why is this? Why wouldn't you send the original invoice? In respect of SC-2017-009:- We have the original invoice with the original amount, why have you edited the invoice to charge lessees more? In respect of SC-2017-010:- Works to Flat 2 Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The Applicants called Assured’s office and pretended to be from our Accounts Department. Because they did not ask for the correct paperwork, they received misleading correspondence. A letter will follow from a Director of Assured Preservations explaining the situation fully. The Landlords are led to understand that this point was thrashed out in some detail during the Hearing of 16 and 17 June 2022, but may be mistaken and are happy to elucidate the matter further. We refer the Tribunal to Dr MacEvoy’s Supplementary Witness Statement of 16 June 2022 (now at pp. F4 – F6 of Appendix F) and the explanatory letter provided by Assured Preservations (p. F7 of Appendix F). Regarding SC-2017-010, works relate to penetrating damp to structural walls and fall squarely with the Landlords’ repairing covenants. The Landlords concede that the apportionment of SC-2017-009 to Flat 5 exceeds the Section 20 consultation threshold by £52.40 and would be willing to make an Application to the Tribunal for retrospective dispensation from the consultation requirements under Section 20ZA of the LTA1985. The Tribunal determines that these charges are payable and reasonable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent and rejects the evidence of the Applicant which was obtained in circumstances which are very likely to cause confusion. The Tribunal has made a decision on the application for dispensation from the consultation requirements elsewhere in the decision. J Interiors SC-2017-011 p. R268 SC-2017-015 p. R272 SC-2017-016 p. R273 108.00 420.00 300.00 12.00 32.31 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. SC-2017-011: Why are we paying for works on flat 2? SC-2017-015 Who provided the scaffolding? And why more works on the roof? SC-2017-016: works for flat(s) that aren’t ours. Why are we paying for this? Why is all this work needed? Is this work required? In respect of SC-2017-011:- Works to Flat 2 In respect of SC-2017-015:- Was this work necessary? who instructed the work? In respect of SC-2017-016:- Includes flat A so should be split 14 ways if the work was carried out. Invoice SC-2017-011 describes consequential work in Flat 2 arising from specialist waterproof re-plastering of structural walls and is therefore recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. Invoice SC-2017-015 describes the investigation of defective cast-iron rainwater goods to the North-East elevation of the main building. Invoice SC-2017-016 relates to easing and adjusting the shared door to the basement fire escape. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The works described at SC-2017-011 are consequential to the damp-proofing works in Flat 2 described at SC-2017-010 and therefore fall into the Service Charge account. SC-2017-015 describes the investigation of aged cast-iron rainwater goods to the North-East elevation. Complaints of water running down the flank wall were received from Flats A and B, Ripley House and from the leaseholders of Flat 1, Ripon House and Flat 254A. In respect of SC-2017-016, the Landlords understand the point being made , as the fire escape effectively serves 10 flats rather than 9. This would reduce the amount payable by the Tenants by £3.33. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges of £12.00 and £32.31 are payable and reasonable and that the charge of £33.33 should be reduced to £30.00. The Tribunal accepts the argument and evidence of the Respondent and its concession that the invoice at page R273 SC – 2017 -016 should be divided by ten and not nine properties. Northway Electrical Services SC-2017-012 p. R269 289.44 32.16 0.00 We do not accept this invoice – We believe this company isn’t genuine. Can we see the report? When was this work carried out? no date on invoice., how do you know when it is for? Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Northway Electrical Services Ltd is a member of the NICEIC and this can be checked on the NICEIC website. There is no inspection report. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The invoice was presented to the Managing Agent on Monday 3 April 2017. The party who reported the problem was the leaseholder of Flat 2. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charge is reasonable and payable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent and find no merit in the argument of the Applicants. It considers the Applicants’ queries have been answered. Patrick Bishop SC-2017-013 p. R270 SC-2017-014 p. R271 66.00 110.00 7.33 12.22 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice, there is no company name on the invoice, no details at all. The company can’t be found online. Who is this company? We don’t believe that it is a genuine company. Why are we paying for someone to check a ceiling rose in another flat? In respect of SC-2017-013:- Work on Flat 6 In respect of SC-2017-014:- Replacing columbus light switch Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Patrick Bishop is a sole trader. He is a fully qualified and insured electrician but charges rather less than the likes of Northway Electrical. He only takes on small jobs. A light fitting was checked in Flat 6 because of escape of water from the flat above, i.e. works were consequential and costs fall into the service charge account. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. SC-2017-013 describes the checking of a pendant light in Flat 6 for water damage. The water had escaped from the flat above, i.e. works were consequential and costs fall into the Service Charge account. Had the leak been more serious and costs greater, the matter would have been passed over to the building insurers. SC-2017-014 describes the replacement of a Columbus vacuum time-lag switch by the communal entrance door of Ripon House. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(e) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal considers the charges to be reasonable and payable. It accepts the evidence of the Respondent and considers that the queries of the Applicants’ have been answered satisfactorily. AVS Building and Maintenance SC-2017-017/018 p. R274 2,125.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. The company does not exist anywhere online. The Invoice looks disingenuous and where was this work done? Can you provide proof for this work? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. AVS (run by Alan Vidler) was a company put forward by the Peppercorn Group, who are the leaseholders of Flat B, Ripley House. Peppercorn is a very large, commercial freeholder and we had no reason to mistrust their recommendation. No charge has been demanded by the Respondent and therefore no determination made. Andrew Harris SC-2017-019 p. R275 SC-2017-020 p. R276 SC-2017-021 p. R277 SC-2017-022 part p. R289 890.00 980.00 220.00 240.00 63.57 70.00 15.71 169.23 Sub-total 318.51 Sub-total 264.23 We do not accept this invoice. Invoice SC-2017-019 is regarding removing garage doors, boundary walls and hiring of a skip – this development belongs to you, why are we paying for this? SC-2017-020: what is grounds maintenance? Why are we paying for this twice a month? What are the ‘arisings’ from the site that need disposing of? Invoice SC-2017-019 describes the clearance of waste dumped on the site by parties unknown, although we did have our suspicions. At the time, no planning consent had been granted and the garages were very much still considered to be within the curtilage of Ripon House. Invoice SC-2017-020 describes grounds maintenance; cutting lawns, trimming shrubs, sweeping hardstandings, applying weedkiller and then carting away cuttings and leaves to a licensed off-site tip. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. The Tribunal determines that these charges are payable and reasonable. It accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Bowden Property Investment SC-2016-022* Respondents’ note: Mis-labelled by the Applicants. SC-2017-025 p. R339 2,925.00 225.00 120.00 Is this reasonable? The management of the building is poor which can be reflected in the witness statements. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Contact Sheets of 1,350 photographs, which show a fraction of works undertaken over the last 10 years. The property requires an exceptional amount of management. A charge of £209 per unit is reasonable. The Tribunal determines that management costs of £209 are payable and reasonable. 2018 Drain View Ltd SC-2018-004 p. R345 SC-2018-005 p. R346 SC-2018-006 p. R347 420.00 120.00 420.00 32.31 9.23 32.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Why does the same expensive job have to be carried out 3 times in one year? None of these invoices have invoice numbers from the company. We do not believe the company is genuine and the work was not needed. Why are we using companies that aren’t VAT registered? Can we have some proof of the works? In respect of SC-2018-004 and 006:- See above response in 2015. In respect of SC-2018-005:- Why couldn’t this work be carried out when they attended above to do the same work Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The drains need to be cleansed so frequently because, despite numerous letters to the property in recent years, some residents persist in tipping cooking oils into their kitchen sinks. In the matter of the need to cleanse underground drainage twice-annually (SC-2018-004 and SC-2018-006), the Landlords respectfully refer the Tribunal to the comments made by Dr MacEvoy in his Supplementary Witness Statement at p. F5 of Appendix F. SC-2018-005 pertains to the particular task of clearing food waste from the gulley to the left-hand side of the porch as facing from the carriageway. Works were carried out 5 weeks after the first cleansing of the underground drainage in the Service Charge year. If residents persist in tipping fats and food into kitchen sinks, it is possible for an individual gulley to become blocked in a few days. Rice is often the culprit. The Managing Agent cannot predict when acts of thoughtless, antisocial behaviour will occur; it can only write to residents and reinforce the message that sinks should be used for water only and not as a means of rubbish disposal. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the costs are payable and reasonable. It accepts the evidence and argument of the Respondent. It is well aware that such costs are irksome to leaseholders but the costs are reasonably incurred and covered by the lease and therefore must be paid. Northway Electrical Services SC-2018-007 p. R348 SC-2018-008 p. R349 SC-2018-009 p. R350 SC-2018-010 p. R351 SC-2018-011 p. R352 SC-2018-012 p. R353 SC-2018-019 p. R363 SC-2018-027 p. R373 342.00 420.00 357.60 1,374.00 342.00 894.00 361.08 399.42 38.00 46.67 39.73 152.67 38.00 99.33 40.12 44.38 38.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice/s. SC-2018-008: replacing the light switch again that was refitted brand new 6 months ago by Patrick Bishop? Why does it need replacing again? We do not believe any of this work is genuine. There is no information on this company for us to find out what work they do? can you provide proof of the work? Inspection report? Service report? In respect of SC-2018-008:- Columbus light switch was replaced by Patrick Bishop last year 30.9.16 - why does it need replacing again? In respect of SC-2018-009:- Paying for another test? In respct of SC-2018-010:- Why were 3 visits needed? In visit 1 Northway Electrical were able to identify and fix fault, why couldn't they do this for flat 2? Why couldn't they do what they did in visit 2 in visit 1? poor management here. 3 visits were not necessary. Also why couldn't they do this job in April when they visited and saw the fault. Why have they come back 3/4 months later to fix it? Surely as a statutory requirement it should be done sooner if it's a requirement? In respct of SC-2018-012:- Why are we carrying out a 'major fire alarm service' when we pay twice monthly for the 'automatic fire detection test' is this not the same thing? Where were the life detectors renewed? as some were renewed in the April visit. In respct of SC-2018-019:- This is for work in flat 2 In respct of SC-2018-027:- as above - replacing another 2 smoke detectors. so far 10 have been replaced this year. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Northway Electrical Services Ltd is a member of the NICEIC and this can be checked on the NICEIC website. Maintenance of Automatic Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting systems twice-yearly is a statutory requirement. There are no reports; it is quite clear from invoices subsequent to statutory inspections as to those works which have been found wanting. There are several vacuum time-lag switches in the hallway; there is no duplication between the work of Patrick Bishop and the work of Northway Electrical at invoice SC-2018-008. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. Dealing firstly with the Tenants’ comments in respect of SC-2018-008, there are Columbus vacuum time-lag switches at each level of the communal hallway. This is not a repetition of works carried out prior by Patrick Bishop Electrical. SC-2018-009 (replacement of emergency lighting luminaires on 4 May 2017) is a follow-up to the statutory test performed on 14 April 2017. It is a requirement in the two relevant British Standards that, if any part of an emergency lighting or automatic fire detection system is renewed, a basic re-test is required. Turning to SC-2018-010, a good deal of office time was spent by the Managing Agent in attempting to organise simultaneous access to all flats and a concern was raised by the Landlord’s surveyors that, some leaseholders did not seem to understand the importance of having a fully working system. The leaseholder of Flat 254A at the time adopted a confrontational, unhelpful stance; whichever date was suggested, there was always a problem. A Managing Agent can only take matters so far. Looking back through the audit trail, one leaseholder left the building at around 11am during the first visit due to a family emergency. They did not return, leaving the contractor unable to trace out cables. On the second visit, two residents (both sub-tenants), who had promised to be present, were absent when the contractor arrived. In respect of SC-2018-012, following an incident at another property not owned by the Landlords, the Managing Agent instructed the contractor to re-examine and service the whole system over and above testing. This instruction was driven by a suspicion (which transpired to be correct) that the leaseholders of Flat 254A had tampered with the system during their own internal building works. No detectors (either heat or smoke) were replaced in April 2017 and this is made clear in the text of invoice #11155 from Northway Electrical. SC-2018-019 refers to the renewal of a smoke detector in Flat 2. While the detector is within the demise of Flat 2, there are detectors within all of the flats and the system protects the entire building. Costs fall into the Service Charge account. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent which it considers deal with the concerns of the Applicants in a satisfactory manner. J Interiors SC-2018-013 p. R354 SC-2018-016 p. R358 SC-2018-017 p. R360 SC-2018-018 p. R362 SC-2018-021 p. R365 SC2018-023 p. R368 SC-2018-032 p. R379 SC-2018-033 p. R381 SC-2018-035 p. R383 336.00 288.00 330.00 120.00 390.00 280.00 1,488.00 1,740.00 1,242.00 25.85 22.15 25.38 0.00 30.00 31.11 114.46 193.33 138.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. This company dissolved in 2017 and doesn’t exist at the time of invoicing. Why are you using a company that doesn’t exist? Can J Interiors provide bank statements showing payments received? This company is used several times for works that are vague and we don’t believe have happened. Who provided the scaffolding for the works in SC-2018-021 that was needed but we wasn’t billed for? In respect of SC-2018-013 As above - why is this work needed? can we see the letter you sent to residents. If residents are not listening maybe a different form of communication would be helpful? In respect of SC-2018-016 As above In respect of SC-2018-017 As above roof works In respect of SC-2018-023 Waste removal, we fail to understand what all the waste removal is for - clearing the rear of the property from the work you are carrying out for your development? We refuse to accept invoices for rubbish removal as you were editing invoices from london rubbish, removing the addresses they worked at and the pictures they took and writing Ripon House and charging us for rubbish not at our building. In respect of SC-2018-032 Who instructed this work and why? In respect of SC-2018-033 What 2 rooms beneath flat 3? There aren't any rooms beneath it other then another flat. Waste clearance - with 2 skips? honestly where is all this rubbish coming from considering many invoices from the comapnies carrying out work say on the invoice that they remove their rubbish. See above regarding fake invoices to London Rubbish. In respect of SC-2018-035 Includes flat A so should be split 14 ways Costs are recoverable at Clauses 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. We direct the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr John Baker of J Interiors at Page R9 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. Invoices from J Interiors are clear and detailed, which is part of the reason why we use their services so frequently. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. In respect of SC-2018-013 and SC-2018-016 (scheduled maintenance of rainwater goods), the reasons for the need for clearance – leaves and silt – have been articulated above when dealing with this query from the Tenants in previous years. The Landlords do not understand the reference made by the Tenants to SC-2018-017. The works were of local re-pointing and stopping around open waste penetrations to the rear elevation, where the leaseholder of Flat 9 was concerned that water may enter. SC-2018-023 is an invoice from J Interiors for opening the cupboard at the top of the Ripon House stairwell, clearing away the contents, cleaning the cupboard and fitting a new Fire Brigade lock. The reference to London Rubbish is not understood. The reason for rubbish removal was a concern with uncontrolled storage of combustible materials immediately adjacent to the principal route of escape. SC-2018-032 describes replacement of aged cast-iron gutters over the North-East flank wall with powder-coated cast Aluminium gutters of equal section (see SC-2017-015 above). Works were instructed by the Managing Agent and addressed the concerns raised by Flats A and B, Ripley House and by the leaseholders of Flat 1, Ripon House and Flat 254A. SC-2018-033 refers to removal of rubbish from the store rooms beneath Flat 3, adjacent to the basement fire escape. Around a year later, the leaseholders of Flat 3 approached the Landlords with a view to extending their demise into these rooms. Their Lease was surrendered and re-granted and they also entered into a Licence to Alter. Photographs of the rooms during the clearance of rubbish are shown at pp. F9 – F10 of Appendix F. In respect of SC-2018-035, the Landlords understand the point the Tenants make. The cost should be split 10 ways rather than 9, resulting in a saving of £13.80 to Flat 5. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are reasonable and payable other than the charge SC- 2018 -035 which should be apportioned to the Applicants as one tenth rather than one ninth and therefore be reduced by £13.80. The Tribunal accepts the evidence and argument of the Respondent. London Rubbish SC-2018-014 p. R356 130.00 10.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. London Rubbish was another company we contacted to get clarity on the amount. They sent us the original invoices NONE of them are addressed to Ripon House, you have changed the amounts and the addresses on these invoices and charged us, Why? Photographic evidence has been provided of rubbish at different addresses being removed that is NOT Ripon House. Why would you do that? We have, literally, hundreds of invoices from London Rubbish across around 40 sites. We also do not understand this discrepancy and have asked our Managing Agent to investigate further. If an answer cannot readily be found, we are happy to write off this invoice. The Tribunal determines that no charge should be made for this item. No invoice has been produced to justify this £10.00 charge. MPM Building Excellence Professional Fees SC-2018-015 p. R357 SC-2018-022 p. R367 SC-2018-028 p. R374 SC-2018-029 p. R375 SC-2018-030 p. R376 SC-2018-034 p. R382 SC-2018-036 p. R385 SC-2018-037 p. R386 360.00 450.00 480.00 360.00 96.00 312.00 600.00 216.00 0.00 50.00 53.33 40.00 10.67 34.67 66.67 16.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices because they are from your ex business partner, the works are expensive and exaggerated to benefit MPM. Can we see all reports and requests from lessees and photos taken? In respect of SC-2018-022 Does not apply to flat 5. Should be split 14 ways includes Ripley House. High cost compared to the job carried out. In respect of SC-2018-028 This is for work in flat 2 In respect of SC-2018-030 Should be split 14 ways as covers grounds - car park. Is a surveyor visit necessary? In respect of SC-2018-034 Why did the surveyor need to be involved with this? How much was the job and where is the invoice from Addiscombe security? In respect of SC-2018-036 This job includes flat A - see above In respect of SC-2018-037 No invoice for this and on final account document this says its for Ripley House, why are MPM sending an invoice to Ripon house for this in your bundle but this isnt shown on your final account? Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Dr MacEvoy of MPM Building Surveyors at Pages R7 and R8 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The invoices in question describe the surveying work carried out in detail and contain rather more information than we usually receive from other surveyors, engineers and project managers. We make no apology for employing reliable, experienced and knowledgeable staff to ensure that works are correctly specified and overseen. It is our experience that, when works are not overseen, contractor costs tend to rise while the quality of work falls. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. There is a problem in reproducing reports to third parties because most, if not all, contain photographs of the interior of lessees’ flats. Following the General Data Protection Regulation passing into law on 25 May 2018, photographs and references to the same must be removed. While this can be done, the reports become opaque and, of course, there is an administrative cost attached. SC-2018-022 is a surveying fee note for works relating to compliance of the basement fire escape route. This involved a joint site visit with an independent fire safety specialist (paid for by MPM Building Surveyors) and liaison by telephone with Building Control at Bromley Council. The Landlords believe that costs are reasonable. That having been said, costs should be split 10 ways rather than 9, resulting in a cost saving to Flat 5 of £5.00. SC-2018-028 pertains to surveying fees in respect of repairs to structural walls of Flat 2 arising from prior penetrating damp. Repairs are consequential to works falling within the Landlord’s repairing covenants and costs arising properly fall into the Service Charge account. SC-2018-030 refers to the investigation of a void in the driveway prompted by a report from Miss Emma Ward of Flat 2. The Tenants are correct and the apportionment of costs to Flat 5 should be £7.38, a saving of £3.29. Whether a surveyor or a building contractor had attended site, the cost would likely have been around £100 for a one-off, brief visit. The Tenants are correct in respect of SC-2018-036. The cost should be split 10 ways, rather than 9, resulting in a saving of £6.67. Coming lastly to SC-2018-037, the Amosite asbestos was found in the grounds during gardening work and the cost of disposal has been apportioned correctly between all flats. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges, less the concessions made by the Respondent, are reasonable and payable. Therefore the charges should be reduced by £5.00 plus £3.29 plus £6.67, a total of £14.96 The Tribunal accepts the evidence and explanation of the Respondent. Hedges and Sons SC-2018-020 p. R364 192.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. We do not believe that this invoice is genuine - the company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. Hedges & Sons are not a limited company and would therefore not appear at Companies House. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal makes no determination as no charge has been made to the Applicants. Phipps Electrical Solutions SC-2018-024 p. R370 SC-2018-025 p. R371 384.00 540.00 42.67 0.00 42.67 0.00 Happy to pay this once we have seen the report. We will ask the Managing Agent to retrieve these reports from archive and send the same to the Applicants. The Tribunal determines that no charge is payable by the Applicant as the Tribunal did not have evidence that this report has been provided and therefore £42.67 is not payable. Andrew Harris SC-2018-026 p. R372 SC-2018-038 p. R387 SC-2018-039 p. R389 35.00 1,420.00 220.00 2.69 109.23 16.92 2.69 100.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice – We do not believe that this invoice is genuine, and the works carried out are not necessary. What is grounds maintenance? Why do we need it to be carried out so often? On top of all the other maintenance costs of the building? What needs disposing of? The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. In respect of SC-2018-038 Waste clearance twice a month for 1 year, why? what rubbish? As well as additional rubbish removal costs above. In respect of SC-2018-039 Do you have a contract with Andrew Harris? Can we see it? laying rocksalt - weather Dec 11: 2 degrees, light rain partly sunny. 5th Feb: 2 degrees, overcast. 7th Feb: 1 degree, passing clouds. 26 Feb: 0 degrees, partly cloudy. 1st March: -4 passing clouds. Was rocksalt really necessary? Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022. Grounds maintenance involves cutting lawns, trimming shrubs, sweeping hardstandings, applying weedkiller and then carting away cuttings and leaves to a licensed off-site tip. Were it the case that the grounds had not been tended, the grass would be many feet tall and the driveways and lawns littered with leaves. This is not the case. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. Grounds maintenance involves cutting lawns, trimming shrubs, sweeping hardstandings, applying weedkiller and then carting away cuttings and leaves to a licensed off-site tip. Were it the case that the grounds had not been tended, the grass would be many feet tall and the driveways and lawns littered with leaves. This is not the case. In respect of the laying of rocksalt by Andrew Harris at SC-2018-039, there is no contract or framework agreement; he is simply a local, loyal, cheap and responsive contractor. Taking data from the MetOffice archive for Kenley Aerodrome, overnight temperatures on the dates in question were: 11.12.17 -2oC 05.02.18 -3oC 07.02.18 -30C 26.02.18. -60C 01.03.18. -4oC Keeping commonways safe, whether they be internal or external, is very much a part of good estate management. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that these charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence and explanation of the Respondent which it considers deals appropriately with the queries raised by the Applicants. Surrey Groundworks SC-2018-031 p. R377 SC-2018-038a p. R388 330.00 995.00 25.38 76.54 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. This company is another company owned by your ex business partner and the works carried out are in preparation for the bungalow development at the back of the property which is nothing to do with Ripon or Ripley residents. In respect of SC-2018-031 why was this work needed? Mr MacEvoy suggesting work for his company to carry out? In respect of SC2018-038a Comment in the Scotts schedule doesn't match the invoice description which says 'rear of garden' so the rear of the garden is having works. Also who requested landscaping works? this isn't a job for the lessor to 'just do' - includes skip hire for rubbish Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr David Pearson of Surrey Groundworks at Page R12 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. Invoice SC-2018-031 describes work at the front of the property, some 30 metres from the site at the rear. SC-2018-038a describes digging out sedge grass in the main garden of Ripon House. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with land at the rear of the site. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. SC-2018-031 refers to repairs to concrete at the left-hand side of the frontage. The works were prompted by complaints from 3 leaseholders. The reasons for local sinkage of the sub-grade were unclear and the problem has not recurred. SC-2018-038a describes the first stage of removal of sedge grass to the right-hand side and rear of the rear garden as facing from Croydon Road. The sedge grass was overgrown and it was put to the Managing Agent, by a resident of Ripley House and the leaseholders of Flat 3, that the garden might be improved and made more family-friendly. The area of works is shown by the blue shading on the image at p. F11 of Appendix F. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence and explanation of the Respondent. BM Arboriculture SC-2018-040 p. R390 2,030.00 153.87 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Why was this work needed? We’d like proof from the company that the work was carried out. We do not believe that this company exists. Work at the rear of the property - why are we paying for this? Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. The trees and hedges were felled or pruned because they were straggly, poorly-shaped and in need of attention BM Arboriculture is a well-established local company with staff trained to NPTC standards. It was suggested by at least three residents that trees might be removed or pruned because they were of poor quality, cast the garden into shade and reduced the area available for recreation by around 40%. The area of works is shown by the red shading on the image at p. F11 of Appendix F. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charge is payable and reasonable. The Respondent has provided a useful explanation of this charge which is chargeable under the lease. Bowden Property Investment SC-2018-044 p. R452 2,925.00 225.00 100.00 We do not see this as fair and reasonable. The management of the building is poor which can be reflected in the witness statements. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Contact Sheets of 1,350 photographs, which show a fraction of works undertaken over the last 10 years. The property requires an exceptional amount of management. A charge of £209 per unit is reasonable. The Tribunal determines that a charge of £209 per unit is reasonable and payable. It draws upon its own experience of management charges. 2019 J Interiors SC-2019-001 – p. R457 SC-2019-016 – p. R476 SC-2019-017 – p. R477 SC-2019-021 – p. R481 SC-2019-024 – p. R486 SC-2019-026 – p. R489 SC-2019-027 – p. R491 SC-2019-028 – p. 493 SC-2019-030 – p. R495 SC-2019-035 – p. R506 SC-2019-036 – p. R507 11,298.00 150.00 320.00 1450.00 390.00 950.00 504.00 180.00 690.00 417.60 288.00 1,129.80 16.67 35.56 161.11 43.33 105.60 56.00 20.00 76.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. This company dissolved in 2017 and doesn’t exist. In respect of SC-2019-017 Doesnt apply to flat 5. Who instructed this work? Mr MacEvoy from MPM surveyors or Mr MacEvoy at Surrey Groundwork? In respect of SC-2019-021 More roofing works? In respect of SC-2019-28 and SC-2019-29 (Redhill Scaffolding see below) Who carried this out? where's the invoice, whats the description? In respect of SC-2019-026 and 027 What does this mean? who carried out the work and where? In respect of SC-2019-024 as above in 2015, what does this involve when compared to the job below and vice versa? Costs are recoverable at Clauses 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. We direct the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr John Baker of J Interiors at Page R9 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. Invoice SC-2019-001 is an invoice for buildings insurance and not from J Interiors. It is not in the sum of £11,298.00. SC-2019-017 describes works by J Interiors to unblock a shared drainage pipe running through the communal hallway. The need for work was flagged by the residents of Flats 8 and 9. Costs are recoverable from Flat 5. SC-2019-021 describes works to the main roof over parts of the North-East elevation, to replace decaying battens and underlayer. The works were prompted by the discovery of concrete tile fragments in the external commonway beneath the flank wall during a routine gardening visit. The finding was confirmed by the attendance on site of a surveyor with binoculars. SC-2019-029 is an invoice from Redhill Scaffolding Services, to erect a scaffold to access the gable end at the rear of the living room of Flat 9 (almost over the roof of Ripley House). A scaffold was required because Mr Lanyon of Flat 9 had complained of penetrating damp at the rear of the bedroom. SC-2019-028 is an invoice from J Interiors that pertains to the renewal of a weathering detail at first floor level in the rear alcove between the left flank wall of Ripley House and the right-hand wall of the rear bay of Ripon House. The Perspex sheet serving as a weathering at a step in the line of the masonry had disintegrated partially and rain was able to sit on, and penetrate, the masonry corbel. SC-2019-26 describes works at the top of the rear alcove, where gutters had been routed historically around a soil-and-vent pipe. The two dog-legs in the line of the gutters caused two blockages within a period of 3 months and the residents of Flat 254A experienced penetrating damp over the window in the rear wall of their kitchen/ living room/ diner. The soil-and-vent pipe was re-routed with a swan-neck and a new section of straight gutter inserted, i.e. the dog-legs were removed. SC-2019-27 describes repairs to mortar around fixings for the soil-and-vent pipe in the rear alcove and descaling and redecoration of the pipe. SC-2019-024 pertains to an investigation of the cause of damp in the communal hallway, by the front door, reported by the leaseholders of both Flats 1 and 2. No defects were found, despite extensive investigations, and it was concluded that the water may have originated from an accidental overflow in the kitchen of Flat 5 above. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges in connection with work carried out by J Interiors is payable and reasonable. It accepts the evidence and explanation of the Respondent. It notes the acceptance of R476 by the Applicants. It also notes that R457 is not as noted by the Applicants and therefore the sum of £1,129.80 is not relevant to the applicant’s argument. The applicants agreed liability for insurance charges in the first hearing. MPM Building Excellence SC-2019-001* p. R457 Respondents’ note: Mis-labelled by the Applicants. This is an insurance certificate. SC-2019-031 a p. R497 SC-2019-031 b p. R498 SC-2019-031 c p. R499 SC-2019-031 d p. R500 SC-2019-031 e p. R501 SC-2019-031f p. R502 SC-2019-034 p. R505 1,620.00 984.00 1,020.00 660.00 480.00 420.00 1,026.00 168.00 162.00 61.45 63.70 41.22 29.97 26.23 64.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices because they are from your ex-business partner, the works are expensive and exaggerated to benefit MPM. Can we see all reports and requests from lessees and photos taken? In respect of SC-2019-031a Which competitive tenders? Who decides this? Mr MacEvoy or the management company? In respect of SC-2019-031b In total for both Ripon & Ripley, these 6 jobs amount to £4590.00. £2580 apportioned to Ripon House but from my calculations £2,124 is the correct amount for Ripon House. In respect of SC-2019-031c Works on flat 8 In respect of SC-2019-031d Works on flat 9 Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Dr MacEvoy of MPM Building Surveyors at Pages R7 and R8 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The invoices in question describe the surveying work carried out in detail and contain rather more information than we usually receive from other surveyors, engineers and project managers. We make no apology for employing reliable, experienced and knowledgeable staff to ensure that works are correctly specified and overseen. It is our experience that, when works are not overseen, contractor costs tend to rise while the quality of work falls. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. As explained above, reports cannot be shared with other leaseholders because of the restrictions imposed by GDPR. While a handful of leaseholders are willing for reports to be released to third parties, the general experience is that homeowners guard their privacy carefully. SC-2019-031 Part A is a surveying fee note pertaining to works to rainwater goods and roofs over the North-East elevation. Tenders were sought from J Interiors, Shore Developments Limited and Treble B Building Services Limited. Decisions as to which contractor should be appointed are made jointly by the Surveyor and Managing Agent, as each has their own perspective on works “to bring to the table”. SC-2019-031 Part C is a surveying fee note in respect of works to remediate water ingress to the left-hand side of the living room of Flat 8. The work is not “in” Flat 8; it is to the roofs thereover. The cause of water ingress was perished lead to the valley lining and this had caused the lay boards beneath to rot. SC-2019-031 Part D is a surveying fee note in respect of works to remediate water ingress to the walls and roof of the bedroom of Flat 9. Again, the work is not “in” Flat 9; it is to the roofs thereover and to the structural walls bounding the demise. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charge is payable and reasonable. The Respondent has provided useful details of the works carried out. Northway Electrical Services SC-2019-005 /1 p. R464 SC-2019-005 / 2 p. R465 SC-2019-006 p. R466 SC-2019-007 p. R467 SC-2019-009 p. R469 333.60 333.60 550.00 360.00 345.60 37.06 37.06 61.11 40.00 38.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice/s. The fire alarm seems to be failing every year and needs constant maintenance from this company, why? The wording in this invoice is almost word for word with the wording used in invoices from J Interiors invoices in 2018. We do not believe that these invoices are genuine. No website, so we can’t check what the company specialise in – can you provide proof of the work? Inspection report? Service report? In respect of SC-2019-06 What repairs? invoice doesn't specify what this is In respect of SC-2019-007, 008 & 009 Which invoice does this work refer to? cannot find an invoice to match this amount. which company carried out the work? what lighting and where did this work take place? In respect of SC-2019-005 No invoice for this work? Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Northway Electrical Services Ltd is a member of the NICEIC and this can be checked on the NICEIC website. Maintenance of Automatic Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting systems twice-yearly is a statutory requirement. There are no reports; it is quite clear from invoices subsequent to statutory inspections which works have been found wanting. We have held back from replacing the (aged) alarm system until the hallway is next decorated, because cables will have to be chased into walls and ceilings. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. Looking back through the file, SC-2019-006 pertains to repairs and renewals to the control panel and to 2 call points. While the Landlords want to make every attempt to assist the Tenants in their understanding of expenses towards which they are required to contribute, there is little point in repeating the text of invoices SC-2019-007, SC-2019-008 and SC-2019-009. Each invoice describes works clearly and has a number and a date. What the Landlords can add is that, works at SC-2019-008 and SC-2019-009 were prompted by reports from residents that conventional lights, i.e. not the emergency lights, had failed. SC-2019-005 Parts 1 and 2 may be found at pp. 464 – 465 of the Landlords’ Bundle. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are reasonable and payable. The Tribunal accepts the evidence and explanation of the Respondent which it considers to be reasonable. Patrick Bishop SC-2019-008 p. R468 90.00 10.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. This company is carrying out the same work as the above company – replacing lights? Why don’t you use one company for these things? there is no company name on the invoice, no details at all. The company can’t be found online. Who is this company? We don’t believe that it is a genuine company. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(e) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to our response given in the matter of invoices SC-2017-013 and SC-2017-014 above. The Tribunal determines that this charge is reasonable and payable. It accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Surrey Groundworks SC-2019-010 p. R470 SC-2019-019 p. R479 SC-2019-032 p. R503 SC-2019-038 p. R511 SC-2019-039 p. R512 SC-2019-043 pp. R516 & R517 SC-2019-044 pp. 518 & R519 290.00 865.00 468.60 120.00 360.00 1,941.96 3,273.60 22.31 0.00 0.00 13.33 25.71 138.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. The Surveyor owns this company, so is recommending work to the landlord for his company to carry out? How is this reasonable and fair? The wording used in these invoices and those for AWR Roofing are more or less the same, why is this when they are different companies? London Rubbish was invoiced for by your surveyor who is also charging here for more rubbish removal – we do not see this as genuine, as the invoices for rubbish removal aren’t true. This company is another company owned by your ex-business partner and the works carried out are in preparation for the bungalow development at the back of the property which is nothing to do with Ripon or Ripley residents. In respect of SC-2019-010 Barry MacEvoy again directing himself to do the work? In respect of SC-2019-038 Waste removal, we do not believe waste was there to be removed, like it was suggested there was for London Rubbish to remove in previous years before. In respect of SC-2019-043 & 044 What is this work? No information is provided. In respect of SC-2019-039 Mr MacEvoy instructing himself to do work again Costs are recoverable variously at Clauses 4(1)(d) and 2(17) of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr David Pearson of Surrey Groundworks at Page R12 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The works are unrelated to the site at the rear of the property. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The relationship between Surrey Groundworks and MPM Building Surveyors has been articulated above and may also be found at pp. F1 – F2 of Appendix F. SC-2019-044 describes renewal of a section of fence at the front of the left-hand side of the site, against the boundary with 252 Croydon Road. Photographs of the area in question are shown at p. F12 of Appendix F. Works are in plain sight. Costs are recoverable variously at Clauses 4(1)(d) and 2(17) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges other than SC 2019 – 044 are reasonable and payable. It determines that no charge should be made in connection with works covered by SC 2019 – 044 as there is insufficient detail provided as to the basis of the charge. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent in connection with all of the invoices other than SC 2019 – 044 which it considers to be inadequate. Drain View Ltd SC-2019-011 p. R471 SC-2019-012 p. R472 SC-2019-013 p. R473 SC-2019-014 p. R474 SC-2019-015 p. R475 120.00 120.00 650.00 384.00 120.00 9.20 9.20 49.83 29.44 9.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. No invoice numbers are on invoice. Why are we using companies that aren’t VAT registered? Invoice description is very similar wording to that used in invoices from J Interiors and NorthWay Electrical services? Why is this? We do not believe that the work is genuine. This company has no website. Can we see the CCTV? In respect of SC-2019-013 and 014 Who carried out this work and where? Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to our response given in the matter of invoice SC-2015-005 above. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. SC-2019-013 pertains to CCTV survey of underground drainage to the site complete. Works were carried out on Friday 23 March 2018 by Drain View Ltd, as stated on the invoice. The reason for carrying out these works was a concern on the part of the Managing Agent that, there might be reasons other than food waste for the very frequent blockages in the system. SC-2019-014 is an invoice for scheduled cleansing of underground drainage. Works were carried out by Drain View Ltd on Tuesday 13 November 2018, as stated on the invoice. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Redhill Scaffolding SC-2019-018 p. R478 SC-2019-022 p. 483 SC-2019-029 p. R494 2,250.00 804.00 600.00 0.00 89.33 66.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. This company belongs to you. We don’t believe this work was carried out or needed. You are working with your ex business partner who instructs the work. He uses his company, Surrey Groundworks to deliver the work and you use your company to provide the scaffolding and we are billed for unnecessary work from companies that you and your business partner own, how is that fair and reasonable? In respect SC-2019-018 This is your company carrying out the work, did you compare prices with other scaffold companies? In respect of SC-2019-29 and SC-2019-28 (J Interiors see above) Who carried this out? where's the invoice, whats the description? In respect of SC-2019-022 2 lots of scaffolding were provided by the same company on the same day? see above. What work was this needed for? Stephen Clacy of the Respondents, in his capacity as a Chartered Accountant, is company secretary of RSS but has not taken an active role in the last 5 years. He has drawn no salary, fees or other benefits at any time during his tenure. The reason for his involvement was to help Mr Williams of the directors, whom he had known for almost 30 years, while his life partner was terminally ill and Mr Williams was trying to cope with his young children. Redhill Scaffolding Services Limited is no more Mr Clacy’s company than Surrey Groundworks is Dr MacEvoy’s. To continue with these specious lines of argument does not help anyone. Having spoken to MPM Building Surveyors, scaffolding contracts at the time were generally offered for tender to Treble B Building Services, J Batts Scaffolding, Urban Scaffolding and latterly BST Scaffolding. SC-2019-018 is not charged to Ripon House. SC-2019-022 describes the raising of a scaffold to the front elevation by Redhill Scaffolding Services Limited. The scaffold was required to allow AWR Roofing safe working access to the valley between the left-hand gable and the front principal roof slope (SC-2019-023). SC-2019-029 describes the raising of a scaffold to allow access to the roofs over the rear of Flat 9 by Redhill Scaffolding Services Limited. The tower was required to investigate water ingress to the bedroom and bathroom of Flat 9. SC-2019-022 and SC-2019-029 are separated in time by 11 months and relate to different parts of the building. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. J Batts Scaffolding SC-2019-020 p. R480 SC-2019-025 p. R488 1,400.00 750.00 155.56 83.33 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice – why was this scaffolding needed? And why was major costs spent on scaffolding works (this and above) needed within 2 months of each other? The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The invoices refer to scaffolds at opposite sides of the building and this is made very clear in their wording. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. AWR Roofing SC-2019-023 pp. R484 & R485 2,250.00 250.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice – more work on the roof valley? We have paid a few times for this in previous years, why does it keep needing repairs? The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The invoice describes work to the valley between the left-hand gable and the front principal slope; there is no duplication of the works at SC-2014-010, which related to the right-hand valley. It is unsurprising that both valleys have failed at roughly the same time, because they are of the same age. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Andrew Harris SC-2019-033 p. R504 SC-2019-040 p. R513 SC-2019-041 p. R514 SC-2019-042 p. R515 SC-2019-045 B p. R521 80.00 1,460.00 352.00 130.00 420.00 0.00 104.29 25.14 9.29 46.66 0.00 95.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. SC-2019-033 is for work on Ripley House. Invoice SC-2019-045 says clean carpet, have you seen the carpet? It needs repairing, see photos in bundle. The company doesn’t exist according to Companies House, there’s no website or proof that the work was carried out or required. In respect of SC-2019-040 Waste removal - What grounds maintenance? and what is being carted away? In respect of SC-2019-041 Weather 3rd - 24th January 2013: high: 12 degrees low: 0 weather 3rd Feb:4-7 degrees weather 26th March: 3-5 degrees - is it really necessary to lay rocksalt? And why only lay rocksalt on those days, why wasn't it laid on the other predicted snow days? In respect of SC-2019-042 waste clearance - Andrew Harris was removing waste in Invoice sc-2019-040 twice a month in January - why was he back for more waste removal? what is all this waste? Costs are recoverable variously at Clause 2(17) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. We refer the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022 attached hereto. It is made clear in invoice SC-2019-045B that the carpet was cleaned “as best possible”. The task of the cleaners would be made rather easier if residents did not use the internal commonway as a repository for their home improvement projects, which gives rise to an astonishing amount of correspondence with the offending leaseholders. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Bromley Financial Services SC-2019-037 pp. R509 & R510 314.86 24.22 0.00 What is this for? What containers? For more rubbish? Is this genuine for Ripon/Ripley house or for your development at the back? How do we know? Why did we hire bins from Bromley council? what for? The invoice is from Bromley Council for bin hire. Bins were hired from Bromley Council because, at the time, the Council provided sturdy bins at a sensible, albeit escalating, price. The Tenants object to bin hire at this line item. The Tenants later object to the purchase of bins to avoid hire charges (see RIP60 from Andrew Harris at p. R703 of the Landlords’ Bundle below). The Tenants seek to put the Landlords in the impossible situation where nothing the Landlords do finds favour. The Tribunal determines that the charge is reasonable and payable. It accepts the evidence and explanation of the Respondent which it considers answers the queries of the Applicants. Baytree SC-2019-045A p. R520 1,782.00 169.23 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Have you seen the communal area? Why are we spending this amount of money to keep the communal area clean when it’s falling apart, wouldn’t it be better to invest in some new carpet? Paint? Instead of paying a company that doesn’t exist? Who is this company? No details van be found about what they do. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Full details of Baytree Property Services Ltd are freely available on the Companies House website. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Bowden Property Services SC-2019-048 p. R558 3,100.00 238.46 125.00 We do not accept this invoice. The management company are sending fake invoices to leaseholders. There are no fake invoices. Justification of management charges has been given above for previous years and the same response applies here. The Tribunal determines that a charge of £209 per unit is reasonable and payable. It draws upon its own experience of management charges. 2020 Baytree SC-2020-006 p. R596 SC-2020-007 p. R597 SC-2020-019 p. R616 952.00 560.00 1,176.00 105.78 0.00 90.46 0.00 0.00 90.46 We do not accept this invoice. We believe the company is not genuine. Contact details on all the invoices for this company have the contact details faint and difficult to read. Can’t get through to the company with the telephone number, no information online to say what the company specialise in. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Full details of Baytree Property Services Ltd are freely available on the Companies House website. Paul Baylis of the directors may be contacted directly on the mobile number shown at the top of each invoice. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. J Interiors SC-2020-008 A pp. R598 & R599 SC-2020-008 B pp. R600 & R601 SC-2020-012 pp. R607 & R608 SC-2020-014 pp. R610 & R611 696.00 352.00 720.00 728.00 53.54 27.08 0.00 80.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. This company doesn’t exist. Why are you invoicing us from a company that doesn’t exist? In respect of SC-2020-008a and 008B More works on drainage In respect of SC-2020-014 Roof works In respect of SC-2020-028 Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. We direct the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr John Baker of J Interiors at Page R9 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. SC-2020-008 Part A and SC-2020-008 Part B describe scheduled maintenance of rainwater goods by J Interiors. The reasons for the need for regular maintenance have been explained at the Landlords’ response above in respect of SC-2016-005 Parts 1 and 2. SC-2020-008 Part A also includes the renewal of a section of cracked gutter over the left flank wall - the (assumed) 1970s extension. SC-2020-014 does not pertain to roof works. The invoice describes the re-running of mortar fillets between window frames and external window reveals and between window cills and masonry sub-cills. The works were prompted by reports of water ingress around 4 windows to the rear elevation. SC-2020-028 describes works of minor tree surgery to specimens near the site boundaries (in particular to the trees abutting the curtilage of Azelia Hall) and removal of waste. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Northway Electrical Services SC-2020-009 A p. R602 SC-2020-009 B p. R603 SC-2020-023 p. R622 420.00 420.00 222.00 46.66 46.66 24.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not believe that these invoices are genuine or reasonable. When we call the company we are told unable to help. Causes suspicion. Can you provide an inspection report as mentioned in the invoice? In respect of SC-2020-009 A and 009 B See above – 2015 In respect of SC-2020-023 is this work genuine? no date on invoice, how do you know when the work was completed? How can you keep accurate records without this info? Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Northway Electrical Services Ltd is a member of the NICEIC and this can be checked on the NICEIC website. Maintenance of Automatic Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting systems twice-yearly is a statutory requirement. There are no reports; it is quite clear from invoices subsequent to statutory inspections which works have been found wanting. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. It is unsurprising that contractors, or any other business, will not speak to anyone other than their instructing client or customer. SC-2020-009 Part A and SC-2020-009 Part B pertain to statutory six-monthly tests of Automatic Fire Detection and Emergency Lighting Systems. The Tenants accept these expenses in some prior years (see, for example, SC-2015-013 and SC-2018-007) but not others. This leaves the Landlords confused. The reasons for the need for six-monthly testing have been articulated above and are also set out in more detail at p. F6 of Appendix F. SC-2020-023 describes the renewal of a heat detector and base, which was actioned on Tuesday 6 August 2019. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. MPM SC-2020-010 pp. R604 & R605 SC-2020-011 p. R606 SC-2020-013 p. R609 SC-2020-015 p. R612 SC-2020-017 p. R614 SC-2020-022 p. R621 480.00 866.00 180.00 264.00 220.00 384.00 36.92 96.22 0.00 29.33 16.92 42.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Can we see report from Cardinus Risk Management? Can we see the timesheets? Can we see the emailed report? Includes a site visit to J Interiors, a company that doesn’t exist? Can you explain this? Charging us for Mr MacEvoy to visit Drainview? Why? Can we see the report? In respect of SC-2020-10 Why was a re-inspection needed? could management not have done this? In respect of SC-2020-11 Not for our flat In respect of SC-2020-15 Why is a report needed and overseeing of the work, J Interiors has done extensive work on the property by now surely they are a trusted company that do not need supervising In respect of SC-2020-17 why is a supervisory site visit necessary from Mr MacEvoy? it's a trusted company as you wrote in your scotts schedule In respect of SC-2020-22 Flat 5 belongs to us and a surveyor was not necessary for this work Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Dr MacEvoy of MPM Building Surveyors at Pages R7 and R8 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. The invoices in question describe the surveying work carried out in detail and contain rather more information than we usually receive from other surveyors, engineers and project managers. We make no apology for employing reliable, experienced and knowledgeable staff to ensure that works are correctly specified and overseen. It is our experience that, when works are not overseen, contractor costs tend to rise while the quality of work falls. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. We will ask the Managing Agent to send the Cardinus report to the Applicants. SC-2020-10 describes the re-inspection of materials containing, or presumed to contain, asbestos with reference to a report compiled by Cardinus Risk Management. Annual survey is required by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and must be carried by a surveyor holding a P405 Proficiency Qualification at the very least. This specialist work cannot be carried out by a Managing Agent. SC-2020-11 is a surveying fee note pertaining to Escape of Water affecting the Upper Ground and Lower Ground Floor levels of Flat 1. The insurance claim arising amounted to nearly £60,000 and the loss assessors required meticulous detail during their appraisal. In total, surveyors from MPM made 5 site visits and these were backed by circa 85 hours of work from the Managing Agent. Suffice to say, the insurers were not happy with the way in which some leaseholders were maintaining their demises and there was a worrying period of 4 months during which it appeared as if the claim would be repudiated altogether. While the water damage did not affect Flat 5 directly, surveying costs fall squarely into the Service Charge account at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. The Landlords are drawn to wonder what the Tenants might have said had the surveyors and Managing Agent not fought so hard for the claim to be accepted and the Tenants been presented with their share of the bill of around £8,000. SC-2020-15 is a surveying fee note in respect of repairs carried out by J Interiors at SC-2020-14. A site visit was made, and correspondence exchanged, because the contractor was unsure as to whether he should re-form the fillets in cementitious or lime mortar. He was also unsure as to whether to use a “standard” Polysulphide sealant or a more modern Hybrid Polymer Sealant. SC-2020-17 describes the supervision of works by Drain View Ltd at SC-2020-16. The value of these works was £2,180.00. The Managing Agent did not feel comfortable in turning the task over to a contractor, however well-known, without supervision because had the wrong branch been capped, 6 of the 14 flats would have been left without foul drainage. The apportionment to Flat 5 is £16.92, which would, at least to the Landlords’ eyes, seem reasonable for the peace-of-mind delivered. SC-2020-022 pertains to Escape of Water from Flat 5. Mr and Mrs Davids had sub-let the flat and neither they, nor their agent, had maintained the demise in a tenant-like manner. Defects were noted to the gas boiler, bath waste and bath perimeter seals. The surveyor’s report was sent to Mr and Mrs Davids. Surveying costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Drainview Ltd SC-2020-016 p. R613 2,180.00 167.69 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. It is not reasonable. Can we see the CCTV footage? In respect of SC-2020-016 Drainage works Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the lease. As explained above, we do not retain CCTV footage for more than 12 months because of the computer storage space required. SC-2020-016 describes the replacement of a cracked yard gulley and drainline beneath the right flank wall by Drain View Ltd. The problem was flagged by two residents of Ripley House and by the leaseholder of Flat 1, Ripon House. Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. LMD Developments SC-2020-018 p. R615 1,150.00 127.78 0.00 We do not accept this invoice, it’s another company owned by your surveyor/friend/ ex business partner we do not believe that this work was carried out. In respect of SC-2020-018 What gate and frame is this? why was this work needed? it's your company carrying out the work? The new door and frame are in plain sight as one walks down the path beneath the right flank of the building. There is no connection between the owner of LMD Developments – Mr Coonan – and us, the surveyor or other lessees, whether financial, familial or otherwise. SC-2020-018 pertains to the replacement of door and frame, and subsequent decorations, to the electricity meter cupboard serving Ripon House at the front right-hand corner of the building. The work was needed because the existing door and frame were around 30 years’ old and had reached the end of their service lives due to warping, splitting and rot. The new door and frame are in plain sight as one walks down the path beneath the right flank of the building. There is no connection between the owner of LMD Developments – Mr Coonan – and the Landlords, the surveyor or other leaseholders, whether financial, familial or otherwise. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. London Rubbish SC-2020-021 a p. R619 SC-2020-021 b p. R620 198.00 105.00 15.23 8.08 0.00 0.00 This is not a genuine invoice. Why have you edited the invoice to claim is it for Ripon House when the invoice shows the works and photos of another property? The Applicants make an extraordinarily rash and defamatory claim that, among other things, would require us to be computer or art wizards. We refer the Tribunal to our response given in the matter of invoice SC-2018-014 above. If further investigation cannot provide a satisfactory answer, we are happy to write off this sum. The Tribunal determines that no charges are payable in connection with these invoices. The Tribunal notes that the Respondent has been unable to provide a satisfactory answer to the enquiry of the Applicants. Assured Preservations SC-2020-024 p. R623 330.00 36.67 0.00 Do not accept this invoice, as this is not a genuine invoice provided by Assured Preservation In respect of SC-2020-024 Ripley £330.00 was paid to Assured Preservations. The Tenants make an interesting point. The front bedroom of Flat 254A abuts, and shares a structural party wall with, Ripon House. It would therefore seem equitable that costs should be split 10 ways, rather than 9, resulting in a saving to the Tenants of £6.67. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable taking into account the concession of the Respondent of £6.67 The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. M&S Reversionary SC-2020-025 p. R624 3,966.00 305.08 130.00 We do not accept this because the property is not being managed well and we are being invoiced for companies that do not exist and being invoiced from companies that aren’t genuine. Costs are recoverable at Clause 3 of the Fourth Schedule of the Lease. In the matter of whether companies are genuine, we draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statements set out at Pages R5 – R17 of our bundle of 21 April 2022 and to the Witness Statement of Andrew Harris of 3 June 2022 attached hereto. We also draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Contact Sheets of 1,350 photographs, which show a fraction of works undertaken over the last 10 years. The property requires an exceptional amount of management. A charge of £283 per unit is reasonable in comparison with fees levied by other local agents, some of which are now closer to £400 per unit. The Tribunal determines that a charge of £283 per unit is reasonable and payable. It draws upon its own experience of management charges. Andrew Harris SC-2020-026 p. R625 SC-2020-027 p. R626 SC-2020-028 p. R627 SC-2020-032 p. R632 1,920.00 255.00 260.00 247.50 137.14 18.21 18.57 17.68 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. More rubbish removal, how do we know this is true when you have edited previous invoices for rubbish removal? Why does Ripon/Ripley house produce so much rubbish? This company are also being paid to remove rubbish? In respect of SC-2020-026 What arisings were carted away? Why so much rubbish? In respect of SC-2020-027 Weather: 19 Jan: 3 degrees 6 FEb: 11 degrees 26 Feb: 6 degrees 3 March: 6 degrees In respect of SC-2020-028 Invoice states different to what's on final demand, why is this? and who instructed this work? why was it needed? In respect of SC-2020-032 Why was this work needed? Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We would respectfully suggest that the Applicants look carefully through the attached Contact Sheets. It is rare for a couple of months to pass without at least some rubbish being dumped that the Council will not collect. The Landlords stand by their statement above. When the Managing Agent visited the site most recently on Monday 4 July 2022, they found a pile of builders’ waste against the front section of the boundary fence with No.252. Leafing through one of the bags, it was quite clear that the waste had been dumped by a resident of Ripon House. SC-2020-026 is an invoice from Andrew Harris that describes routine grounds maintenance. After each visit, clippings, cuttings, leaves and dirt from sweeping external commonways must be carted from site and taken to a Waste/ Recycling Depot. Turning to SC-2020-027 (laying of rocksalt), data from the MetOffice archive for Kenley Aerodrome, for overnight temperatures on the dates in question,are: 19.01.20 0oC 06.02.20 0oC 26.02.20 -40C 03.03.20 -1oC SC-2020-028 describes works of minor tree surgery to specimens near the site boundaries (in particular to the trees abutting the curtilage of Azelia Hall) and removal of waste. Works were required because tree stems were impinging upon external commonways. The invoice is in the sum of £260.00 and this matches the figure in the Service Charge Account at p. R55 of the Landlords’ Bundle. SC-2020-032 pertains to cleansing of the bin store and the application of Coal Tar Creosote to the timber. This work is desirable if one is to extend the life of the timber and, hopefully, control future costs to leaseholders. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Surrey Groundworks SC-2020-029 p. R628 SC-2020-030 p. R629 SC-2020-031 pp. R630 & R631 SC-2020-033 p. R633 180.00 960.00 1,650.00 440.00 12.86 68.57 117.86 31.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices because they are instructed by your surveyor who owns this company. This is not fair or reasonable. In respect of SC-2020-029 Why was the fence being replaced? is this to do with your development? In respect of SC-2020-030 More work to the back of the property In respect of SC-2020-031 more work to the back of the property In respect of SC-2020-033 Who instructed this work? Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr David Pearson of Surrey Groundworks at Page R12 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The relationship between Surrey Groundworks and MPM Building Surveyors has been articulated above and may also be found at pp. F1 – F2 of Appendix F. SC-2020-029 and SC-2020-030 describe work to the fence with the gardens of Westbury Road and are not related to the development plot at the rear of the site. The need for works is shown clearly at p. F14 of Appendix F. SC-2020-031 is a continuation of works at the front of the property (started prior in April 2018 at SC-2019-044) and represents the replacement of a second portion of the fence with 252 Croydon Road. The fence is 20 metres from the development plot and, of course, there is no relationship. The fence was replaced piecewise because, when the first section of fence was renewed, the section adjacent was still in serviceable condition. Please refer to p. F13 of Appendix F. SC-2020-033 describes repairs to the crazy-paving in the grounds at the front of the property. Repairs were requested by Mr and Mrs Agun of Flat 6 when they met Mrs Diana Sims of the Managing Agent at the property in person. Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. There was no objection by any leaseholder to costs at the time, these are not qualifying works under Section 20 of the LTA1985 and no alternative tenders have been advanced by the Tenants. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. 2021 Many of the comments made by the Tenants in 2021 relate to arguments advanced above that have already been addressed. They are also hard to follow. Accordingly, the Landlords have only picked out issues where they believe further responses are required. In examining several hundred invoices, only a handful – all from London Rubbish – have found to be in question. The Landlords do not have an explanation for these invoices and, if the Landlords cannot at present explain the charges, it is equitable that the Tenants should not have to contribute towards the costs. Baytree 12 invoices all with no invoice number pp. R680 – R691 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 108.00 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 7.56 We do not accept these invoices. Why haven’t these invoices got numbers on. The communal stairway needs repairing not cleaning. We do not believe that this work has been carried out. Costs are reasonable and recoverable at Clause 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Each invoice from Baytree has a distinct number beneath the addressee on the left-hand side of the page. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. J Interiors 10 invoices with no invoice number pp. R692 & R693 pp. R694 & R695 p. R700 Major Works final, see SC-2019-001 above pp. R712 & R713 pp. R715 & R716 p. R728 pp. R734 & R735 p. R736 p. R738 pp. R741 & R742 370.00 370.00 13,134.00 1,185.00 135.00 254.40 1,270.00 216.00 216.00 168.00 28.45 38.45 183.60 91.15 0.00 28.27 141.11 0.00 0.00 18.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept invoices from this company as they do not exist. In respect of R693 & R694 Drainage In respect of R712 More repairs and renewals to the roof. In respect of SC-2020-028 Works on flat 9 - water ingress again. In respect of SC-2020-738 This was for leak under the sink, this is our flat and we have 24/7 drainage cover on our flat and had the management company made us aware we could have this resolved on the same day. We'd expect someone to knock at the door explaining there may be a leak from our flat and for us to fix it. We are happy to send photos of our flat too as it is described in the invoice quite rudely as 'in state of poor repair'. In respect of R741 Work on flat 8 and water again. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. Each invoice from J Interiors has a distinct reference. Invoice 4195A, in the sum of £13,134.00 inclusive of VAT, was consulted upon with leaseholders under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. SC-2020-738 (mislabelled by the Tenants and actually presented in the 2021 account) pertains to an emergency call-out made by J Interiors in response to a complaint from Miss Emma Regan of Flat 2. The Managing Agent did write to Mr and Mrs Davids of the Tenants by e-mail but no response was received. The kitchen worktop was found rotten and sanitaryware leaking (p. F15 of Appendix F refers). The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Northway Electrical services 6 invoices with no invoice number p. R696 p. R697 p. R708 p. R721 p. R731 p. R732 420.00 420.00 924.00 300.00 147.86 396.60 46.67 46.66 102.67 33.33 16.43 44.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices. We do not believe that the work was carried out. Why are we charged for 3 visits because of access problems? Can we see the test reports? In respect of R696 and R697 A lot of electrical work this year In respect of R708 More electrical work In respect of R721 Changing smoke detectors again and emergency lights In respect of R731 New emergency lights being fitted again. In respect of R732 a fault with lighting even though it is tested every 6 months unecessarily according to the site mentioned in 2015 for JOB 10. Costs are recoverable at Clauses 2(15), 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(e) of the Lease. There are no reports; it is quite clear from invoices subsequent to statutory inspections as to those works which have been found wanting. Each invoice from Northway Electrical has a distinct number. No objections were raised by the Applicants, or by any other leaseholders, at the time of works in respect of their quality or cost. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. MPM Building Excellence 8 invoices with no invoice number pp. R698 & R699 p. R701 Major Works final, see above p. R705 p. R714 p. R717 p. R729 p. R730 p. R737 480.00 1,620.00 196.80 384.00 570.00 375.00 150.00 150.00 36.92 162.00 21.87 29.54 0.00 41.67 11.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices. We do not believe that this work was carried out. In respect of R698 Amount seems excessive. In respect of R705 Flat 2 seem to report lots of work that lessees have to pay for. In respect of R714 Mr MacEvoy overseeing roofing works from a genuine company trusted by management who have been doing works on the roof for the last 10 years. In respect of R729 Works on flat 9 - water ingress again. In respect of R730 Invoice states Ripley House Should the Applicants be in any doubt about these invoices, we invite them to investigate the largest (#254CR.inv2021-8.MPM.310121 in the sum of £1,620.00) which was consulted upon under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and involved eight site visits. In respect of R730 (a surveying fee note that pertains to sound-proofing in Ripley House), the Tenants are correct and no charge should be levied against Flat 5. The Landlords therefore concede £11.54. Subject to the concession of the respondent the Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. It is insufficient for the applicants to say that amounts seem excessive without evidence in support. M&S Reversionary No invoice number p. R702 Management charge on S20 Major Works, see above 560.00 56.00 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Managing work that hasn’t taken place or was needed. This fee was consulted upon under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Andrew Harris RIP60 – p. R703 RIP61 – p.R747 RIP62 – p.R750 RIP63 – p. R744 RIP64 – p. R743 1,050.00 760.00 50.00 245.00 1,720.00 75.00 54.28 3.58 17.50 122.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 RIP60 is for 3 bins, Why have you paid so much? I have found the same bins with free delivery for almost half the price – www.yellowshield.co.uk Why are you not working for the best interests of your lessees? In respect of RIP60 These bins can be found cheaper on line - in the same spec. In respect of RIP64 What arisings were carted away? Why so much rubbish? In respect of RIP63 Weather 28th Dec: 3 degrees. 7th Jan: 3 degrees. 22nd Jan: 7 degrees. 8th Feb: -1 degrees. 6th April: 6 degrees. It wasn't necessary for rocksalt on all these dates. In respect of R750 Invoice specifies 'rear of site' In respect of R747 Invoice refers to 'fitting of fence posts' - this is to seperate your development from Ripon House, this benefits you. It is certainly true that much cheaper bins are available. Unfortunately, they rarely last very long because they contain less or weaker plastic and/ or degrade rapidly in UV light. At RIP60, cheaper bins are not to the same Specification. Furthermore, the contractor had to deliver the bins to site. RIP63 describes laying of rocksalt to external commonways. Taking data from the MetOffice archive for Kenley Aerodrome, overnight temperatures on the dates in question were: 28.12.20 -2oC 07.01.21 -3oC 22.01.21 00C 08.02.21 -30C 06.04.21 -2oC R747 describes the laying of 50 square metres to the communal garden at the rear of the property at the site where trees had been removed. Works were discussed with Mrs Brooks of Flat 3 and, in any event, the ground could not be left bare where trees had been felled and new fence posts erected. R750 pertains to the removal of a small section of boundary wall with the rear car park of 252 Croydon Road. The site of works lines with the rear elevation of Ripon House, some 20 metres from the development plot, and was requested by Mrs Brooks of Flat 3 on the grounds of child safety. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Drainview 6 invoices with no invoice number p. R704 p. R710 p. R718 p. R719 p. R720 p. R723 450.00 780.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 220.00 34.61 60.00 10.76 10.76 10.76 16.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices. No invoice numbers from you or the company. How can you keep your accounts up to date without this? In respect of R704 Drainage works In respect of R710 Drainage works In respect of R718,R719 & R720 Drainage work again In respect of R723 Drainage Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(d) of the Lease. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Central communications 2 invoices, No invoice number p. R707 p. R709 300.00 175.00 33.33 19.44 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices. We do not believe the work was carried out. Telephone number called and answered by lady saying we had wrong number? Why is this? In respect of R707 We've just had our phone entry system reinstalled that we paid for ourselves - this is a cost to our flat that we were happy to pay. No call out charge for a surveyor to do a report or investigate and no companies in your list of companies to carry out the work - can you explain more about this job? In respect of R709 See above R707 comments. Each of the invoices has a distinct number. We refer the Tribunal to our response given in the matter of invoice SC-2013-010 above. R707 and R709 describe works to the communal entry system of Ripon House by Central Communications. While it is laudable that the Tenants have attended to their own problems unilaterally, works fall squarely into the Landlords’ repairing covenants. The Landlords would suggest that Mr and Mrs Davids forward a copy invoice to the Managing Agent so that, costs can be apportioned correctly. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. J Batts Scaffolding No invoice number p. R711 1,050.00 80.77 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. Company cannot be contacted. We do not believe that the work was carried out. In respect of R711 Drainage works Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. A scaffold was erected to the right flank for repairs to the rainwater goods by J Interiors. The company is readily contactable, although it has recently relocated from Selsdon. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. AWR Roofing No invoice number p. R722 235.00 18.08 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. We do not think the company is genuine. Do you have proof of the works carried out? Invoice states Ripley House Costs are recoverable at Clause 4(1)(d) of the Lease. The invoice number is 1467 and this is plainly stated on the invoice. R722 is an invoice from AWR Roofing to cleat back trailing cables on and around the roof of Ripley House. These cables also serve Ripon House and costs have been properly apportioned. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. London Rubbish 4 invoices, No invoice numbers p. R724 p. R725 p. R726 p. R727 230.00 190.00 119.00 221.00 17.69 14.61 9.15 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept any of these invoices as you have changed the amounts and the addresses to Ripon house when this isn’t true. Why did you do this? These have been cleared from the account as they are part of fake invoices sent from Mr Clacy. No invoices have been changed. We refer the Tribunal to our responses given above. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. The Safety Partnership No invoice number pp. R739 & R740 2,300.00 176.92 0.00 Can we see the logs for this? In respect of R739 Covid is an air born virus and this isnt needed at all - huge amount to pay, why were lessees not consulted. The logs consist of little more than the date of attendance and the name and nature of the chemical applied. We are happy, though, to send a copy to the Applicants. Unfortunately, COVID is not solely airborne and is often picked up from contaminated touch points. Prior to commissioning these works, we made careful and searching enquiries of, among others, the Association of Residential Managing Agents, the Health and Safety Executive, our own in-house Safety Officer and Cardinus Risk Management. We spoke also to our insurance broker. We were made aware that the building housed at least one highly vulnerable individual. There was a clear consensus that internal commonways should be treated as commercial premises and subject to enhanced cleaning and antiviral protocols. We stand, unequivocally, behind our position for dealing with the unknown and potentially deadly threat which COVID-19 presented at the time. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. The Tribunal notes that ARMA recommended that landlords take precautionary measures. Surrey Groundworks 3 invoices, No invoice numbers. p. R745 p. R748 p. R749 1,920.00 880.00 744.00 137.14 62.86 53.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 We do not accept these invoices as they are from your ex business partner and friend who is charging for work that his other companies are carrying out. How is this fair or reasonable? In respect of R745 Why was tree Surgery needed? and did Mr MacEvoy instruct his company to carry out this work? In respect of R748 Invoice refers to work on the 'boundary' In respect of R749 Invoice refers to 'boundary' Costs are recoverable at Clause 2(17) of the Lease. Each invoice from Surrey Groundworks has a distinct reference. Works to the grounds are in plain sight. We draw the attention of the Tribunal to the Witness Statement of Mr David Pearson of Surrey Groundworks at Page R12 of our bundle of 21 April 2022. R745 describes the final removal of trees to the left-hand side and rear of the communal garden where prior pruning and height reduction had proved unsatisfactory. The cost is relatively high because a 3-tonne excavator was brought to site, to grub out the roots. R749 describes the final removal of sedge grass from the right-hand side of the communal garden. Again, a small excavator was used to rotivate the soil because the remaining root system was dense. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. LMD developments No invoice number p. R746 1,460.00 104.29 0.00 The management of the property is poor. We are being invoiced fraudulently. There are no fraudulent invoices, unless the Applicants genuinely also believe that the selection of 1,350 photographs in the Contact Sheets are also a fiction. Justification of management charges has been given above for previous years and the same response applies here. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. Patrick Bishop No invoice number p. R706 162.50 18.06 0.00 We do not accept this invoice. The invoice has no details about the company at all and nor can we find any. Who is Patrick Bishop? The invoice is the same font as J Interiors with similar wording, why is this? These invoices again don’t seem real? In respect of 706 Replacing light switches again that were replaced not that long ago. We refer the Tribunal to our statement above in respect of invoices SC-2017-013 and SC-2017-014. The Tribunal determines that the charges are payable and reasonable. The Tribunal accepts the explanation and evidence of the Respondent. TOTALS *1) Chargeable under lease? *2) Reasonable in amount/ standard? *3) Correctly demanded?