Judge TagliaviniMr S Johnson MRICSI/P for the ApplicantMr Sami Allan, counsel For the determination of the liability to for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 14 September 2025Hearing 2025-08-28Property: 8EBType of application: pay service charges under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Judge Tagliavini
DECISION
Decisions of the tribunal(1) The tribunal determines that the cost of the guttering works are not reasonable and not payable by the applicant.(2) the management fee for 2023 and 2023 is reduced to £140 per annum. (2) The tribunal determines that all other service charges incurred in the years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 (estimated) are reasonable and payable by the applicant.(3) 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.(4) The tribunal makes an order under para. 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. _____________________________________________________ The application[1]The applicant seeks 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 payability and reasonableness of the service charge year ending 31st December 2023; 2024 and 2025 (estimated) in the sum of £3,040. The Property[2]The subject property at 37B Chase Green Avenue, Enfield EN2 8EB(‘the flat’) comprises a 1 bed ground floor flat in a converted Edwardian house consisting of four flats.[3]The applicant holds a long lease of their respective flat 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. The hearing[4]The applicant represented herself and the respondent was represented by Mr Sami Allan of counsel. The tribunal also heard evidence from the applicant and from Mr Martin Kingsley of K&M Property Management for the respondent. The tribunal was also provided with a 215 page digital bundle on which both parties relied. The issues[5]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 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 including the cost of external works. The heads of service charge challenged were: 2023: Health & Safety; repairs and maintenance; external repairs; management fee; accountancy fees. 2024: Health & Safety; repairs and maintenance; management fee; cleaning; external repairs; and accountancy fees. 2025: No details provided.[6]The applicant asserted that since moving into the flat, she experienced numerous issues stemming from the freeholder’s inaction, including a lack of maintenance and general neglect of the Property which has continued to date. In particular, the applicant complained of damp and mould exacerbated by a leaking gutter in or about the end of 2023. Cedar Care carried out a survey in 2024 and again in January 2025 which found the presence of damp and mould in the flat.[7]The applicant also complained about the lack of transparency on the part of the respondent and its managing agents in providing access to documents and information including insurance documents and annual reports.[8]The applicant also asserted that there had been a lack of maintenance of the property which had led to overflowing gutters, an unsafe driveway and poorly maintained living conditions.[9]Mr Kingsley told the tribunal that budget statement covering the period 2022 to 2025 were provided to the applicant. Mr Kingsley also told the tribunal that the cost of the works in relation to the damp, mould and external repairs will not be passed onto the applicant and will be met by the freeholder. Works to remedy the damp issue in the flat have now been carried out by the installation of an (effective) damp roof course.[10]Mr Kinglsey also told the tribunal that external redecoration works had been carried out in May 2025. The tribunal’s reasons[11]The tribunal finds the cost associated with the overflowing and leaking guttering work should not be passed onto the applicant (pro rata) in view of the limited maintenance that has been carried out on this building. The tribunal finds the respondent was made aware of the blocked guttering by the applicant’s email dated 16 June 2022. Although an inspection took place in July 2022, the gutters remained blocked until 2024/2025.[12]The tribunal limits the management fee to £140 per annum for 2023 and 2024 due to the evident lack of management of the building.[13]Although the applicant challenged the whole of the service charges for 2023; 2024 and 2025 the tribunal found the application lacked detail as to the reasons for the dispute. Further, the tribunal found the applicant had included documents relating to a much earlier period e.g. 2014 which were of limited assistance to the tribunal in respect of the current application.[14]The tribunal also found the respondent’s evidence was somewhat incomplete. However, the tribunal was satisfied on the balance of probabilities by the respondent’s evidence, invoices and accounts that all the fees incurred for the years 2023; 2024 and 2025 (estimate) are reasonable and payable with the exception of the guttering and the reduced management fee.[15]As the respondent has agreed to pay the applicant’s share of the external works the tribunal does need to consider the reasonableness of those works or their cost. Section 20C & para 5A, Sch 11[16]In the applicant’s statement of case Dr McGowan stated she wished to make an application for an order under s20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, so that none of the respondent’s costs can be added to the service charges. In light of the tribunal’s findings and the respondent’s concessions, the tribunal finds it reasonable and appropriate to make the order sought. Similarly, the tribunal makes an order under para. 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Name: Judge Tagliavini Date: 14 September 2025 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 should be made on Form RP PTA available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-rp-pta-application-for-permission-to-appeal-a-decision-to-the-upper-tribunal-lands-chamber 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).