Flat A, 14 Barons Court Road, West Kensington, London W14 9DT LON/00AN/LSC/2022/0245
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)
Case No LON/00AN/LSC/2022/0245
Between
Sinem KurtApplicantLondon Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham – Service charges departmentRespondent
Before
Judge H CarrMs Marina Krisko MRICSN/A for the ApplicantMr Mold of Counsel For the determination of the liability to for the RespondentVenue 10 Alfred Place, London WC1E 7LRDate 9 May 2023Property: Kensington, London W14 9DTType 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 face-to-face hearing. The documents that I was referred to are in a bundle of 1597 pages, the contents of which I have noted. The order made is described at the end of these reasons. Decisions of the tribunal(1) The tribunal determines to reduce the sum payable by the Applicant by £6101.81 in respect of the disputed service charges for the years 2017 – 2023 inclusive. The total amount disputed was £38,804.16. Therefore the total payable is £32,696.35.(2) The tribunal makes the determinations as set out under the various headings in this Decision together with the Schedule attached at Appendix 1.(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 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 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 Applicant in respect of the service charge years 2017 – 18, 2018 – 19, 2019 -20, 2020 – 21, 2021 – 2022 and 2022 – 23. . The hearing[2]The Applicant appeared in person and was accompanied by Mr McCord, Director of Construction Measure Ltd. The Respondent was represented by Mr Mold of Counsel. Also in attendance from the Respondent was Mr Sonny Cook, Associate Partner of Bayley Garner, Joe Jackson Partner with Bayley Garner, Bill Bennett, Project Manager with the Respondent, Stephen Fitzgerald, Senior Service Charge Accountant with the Respondent and Kieran Maguire Head of Home Ownership Services with the Respondent. The background[3]The property which is the subject of this application is a 1 bedroom flat in a 3 storey building which has 4 converted flats in total. The apportionment of the service charges is 23.9% . The Applicant is the only long leaseholder in the building.[4]Major works were carried out in 2017 and in 21/22.[5]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.[6]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. The issues[7]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 2017 – 18, 2018 – 19, 2019 -20, 2020 – 21, 2021 – 2022 and 2022 – 23, in particulara. The costs of the major works included in the service charge demands for 2017- 18 and 2020 – 21.b. Whether the landlord has complied with the consultation requirement under section 20 of the 1985 Act.c. For the service charge years 2018/19; 2019/2020: i. The applicant disputes various heads of annual service charges and an administration charge.d. For the service charge years 2020/2021; 2022/2023: i. Whether service charges and estimated service charges are payable in light of the alleged continuing water ingress into the applicant’s flat and pest issues.(ii) Whether the works are within the landlord’s obligations under the lease(iii) Whether the costs of the works are reasonable, in particular in relation to the nature of the works, the contract price and the supervision and management fee(iv) whether an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act and/or Schedule 11 of the 2002 Act should be made[8]It was agreed that the Applicant’s claims in her Application relating to a set-off and counterclaim (£23,140) her loss of her freedom to sell (£15,000) and the costs of the professional fees of her witness (£8,140) would not be considered as part of the Tribunal’s determination. The Applicant will seek legal advice about a possible County Court claim.[9]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. Are the works within the landlord’s obligations under the lease?[10]The Respondent points out that the Applicant does not suggest that the works were not within the Respondent’s obligations or not payable under the lease.[11]In any event the Respondent submits that all the works fall within covenants set out in the Fifth and the Eighth Schedules to the Lease. The tribunal’s decision[12]The Tribunal determines that the works are within the landlord’s obligation under the lease. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision[13]The Tribunal has considered the relevant covenants under the lease and agrees with the Respondent that the works are within the obligations.[14]The Tribunal notes that the Applicant did not argue that the works were outside her obligations. Compliance with the consultation provisions[15]The Respondent states that it has complied with the statutory consultation requirements. It points out that the roof works were done under the auspices of a qualifying long-term agreement. The consultation letter in respect of the works was sent to the Applicant and dated 26th May 2016.[16]The second set of works, completed in 2020, were done under Schedule 4 of the consultation regulations. Consultation letters were sent to the Applicant dated 5th October 2018 and 24th October 2019.[17]The notice of contract awarded was sent to the applicant dated 16th December 2019. The notice gave reasons for awarding the contract. The tribunal’s decision[18]The Tribunal determines that there was no breach of the statutory consultation requirements. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision[19]The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that it has complied with the statutory consultation requirements in respect of both sets of works.[20]The Applicant provided no evidence of breach of statutory consultation requirements. The challenges to the service charges[21]The background to the application is that the Applicant is very dissatisfied with major works carried out at her property. She considers that the works were unnecessary and were not reasonable in quality.[22]The Applicant was accompanied by Mr McCord, Director of Construction Measure Ltd. Mr McCord provided a condition survey. He used a drone to assess the condition of the property and the source of the damp issues in the property.[23]Mr McCord gave very useful information about the condition of the property and the Tribunal is grateful for his assistance. The tribunal’s decision[24]The Tribunal determines to reduce the service charges for the years in dispute by £6,102.61. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision[25]The attached schedule at Appendix 1 sets out the arguments of the Applicant, the responses of the Respondent and the decisions and determinations of the Tribunal. Application under s.20C and refund of fees[26]At the end of the hearing, the Applicant made an application for a refund of the fees that she had paid in respect of the application/ 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 within 28 days of the date of this decision.[27]In the application form, the Applicant applied for an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Having heard the submissions from the parties and taking into account the determinations above, the tribunal determines 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. Name: Judge H Carr Date: 9th May 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). SCHEDULE DISPUTED SERVICE CHARGES S/C YEAR ENDED 2017-2023 Case Reference: LON/00AN/LSC/2022/0245 Premises: Flat A, 14 Barons Court Road, London W14 9DT ITEM COST TENANT’S COMMENTS * LANDLORD’S COMMENTS * LEAVE BLANK (FOR THE TRIBUNAL) 22/23 Service Charge Estimate £493 Service charges are not payable to due to ongoing water ingress into my property and the pest issues in the void between my ceiling and the roof structure which has taken away my rights from the enjoyment of my home. Communal areas are in a deplorable condition. Demanding of this service charge is not right due to your failures to maintain the building in a responsible manner. Please see the statement for details. The annual service charge relates to different items of expenditure to the invoice for the major works. The Applicant has provided no reasons in relation to s19 of LTA 1985 for challenging the payability of those sums which include the annual ground rent and the buildings insurance amongst other costs incurred on a frequent or annual basis. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for its determination are that (i) It agrees with the argument of the Respondent that the Applicant has not provided a valid reason for not paying these estimated service charges It also agrees that the annual service charge relates to different items of expenditure from the invoice for the major works. 21/22 S/C £413.83 As I paid my Service charges under protest for the year 21/22, I demand a determination for a refund. They were not payable due to water ingress into the communal area and into my bedroom walls, pest ingress, communal lights being “on” 24/7, lifting stairs and general deplorable condition of the building. Demanding of this service charge is not right due to your failures to maintain the building in a responsible manner The annual service charge relates to different items of expenditure to the invoice for the major works. The Applicant has provided no reasons in relation to s19 of LTA 1985 for challenging the payability of those sums which include the annual ground rent and the buildings insurance amongst other costs incurred on a frequent or annual basis. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for its determination are that (i) It agrees with the argument of the Respondent that the Applicant has not provided a valid reason for not paying these estimated service charges It also agrees that the annual service charge relates to different items of expenditure from the invoice for the major works. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 High Level Access/Scaffold £3928.88 I offer to pay £2174.90 for the detailed reasons explained in my statement. The Respondent disagrees. The Applicant has not provided grounds for suggesting that the scaffolding was not carried out to a reasonable standard, nor evidence to suggest that the costs were not reasonably incurred. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for its determination are that although it considers that the Applicant should have the charges for the roof works reduced, and that in many circumstances this would mean that there would be a proportionate reduction in the scaffolding charges, in this instance there were reasons for the charges separate from the roof works. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Main Roof, Balcony and Rear flat roof £2243.48 Not payable. Ongoing water and pest ingress inside my flat, inadequately carried out water proofing works to rear flat roof. Please see the statement for a detailed explanation of reasons. The Respondent disagrees. The work included in the service charge invoice were carried out to reasonable standard. Additional works, which won’t be recharged to the Applicant, are required to address the issues with water ingress. There is no evidence to link the issue with pests to the works. The Tribunal determines that this charge is not payable and reasonable. The work is duplication of previous works which do not appear to have had the benefit of a guarantee. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr McCord about the quality of the works done by the Respondent. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Repairs to Chimney Stacks, parapet walls, Fascia Boards and Rainwater goods £205.6 I offer to pay £81.76. Please see the statement for a detailed explanation of reasons. The Respondent disagrees. Works were carried out to a reasonable standard, and the costs were reasonably incurred. There is no evidence to link the issue with pests to the works. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for its determination it that it accepts the evidence of the Respondent that these works were carried out to a reasonable standard and were reasonably incurred. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Stone and Stucco testing and repair, Front entrance Step Repairs External Door repair and maintenance £5678.11 Not payable. Scope for this heading was not carried out at all. Stucco was just painted; entrance is covered in roofing felt and step repairs are not done. Please see the statement for a detailed explanation of reasons. The Respondent disagrees. Significant works were successfully undertaken. The Tribunal determines to reduce the amount payable by 10%. The reasons for its determination are that whilst the Tribunal accepts that a significant amount of work was carried out, there was evidence from Mr McCord that it accepted that there were areas of the work that were inadequate. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 General Brick Repairs, repointing, Brick Cleaning £1443.35 Not payable. Ongoing pest ingress issues are mainly associated with these works. Please disclose the photos of holes and missing pointing’s from your rework in Apr’22. Please see the statement for a detailed explanation of reasons. The Respondent disagrees. Any holes in the brickwork have already been repaired. Any holes which were exposed after, or caused by, the removal of flashing were repaired on the same day as the flashing was removed. The Tribunal determines that the charge is payable and reasonable. The reasons for its determination are that (i) there is no evidence that pest ingress has resulted from these works and that whilst there appear to have been some issues with the works when first executed the Respondent has carried out subsequent remedial works which the Tribunal consider to be appropriate and adequate. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Window Replacement £7787.82 Failed trickle vent system due to a faulty installation on timber sash windows and other issues listed in my statement. Low performing UPVC window at the rear. Please see my statement for detailed explanation. I offer to pay £5451.47 this heading. The Respondent disagrees. The windows which were installed have a better performance rating than the windows they replaced. No evidence has been presented that the costs were not reasonably incurred. The trickle vents are awaiting to be installed when the Applicant agrees access. The Tribunal determines that the charge for the window replacement is payable and reasonable but only following a further inspection by the Respondent and the completion of any further works identified at that inspection. The reasons for its determination are that the Applicant appears to have some legitimate complaints about the performance of the windows which require further investigation. The Tribunal noted that the trickle vents need attention, that the seals require checking and that the frames require easing. Once that it carried out the monies are payable and reasonable. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 External and Communal Redecorations £2724.6 Not payable for the reasons explained in my statement. Unreasonable standard of quality delivered, charging for wide scope of works but not adhering to the scope and hence it was executed as a bad DIY work. The Council disagrees. The work carried out was to a reasonable standard. The extent of the external decorations is clear from the before and after photos of the property. The internal works did not include replastering and no charge was made for replastering the interior. The Tribunal determines to reduce the cost of the works by 10% The reasons for the Tribunal determination are that whilst the Tribunal agrees that there was no charge for replastering the photographs of the works indicate a poor level of preparation and execution which fall below the appropriate standard. Nonetheless a certain level of works was carried out and the Applicant is required to pay 90% of the amount charged. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Railing Repairs £761.04 I offer to pay £129.93 for the reasons explained in my statement. The Respondent disagrees. The works were carried out to a reasonable standard. No evidence has been produced to show that the costs were not reasonably incurred. The Tribunal determines that the charge is reasonable and payable. The reasons for the Tribunal’s determination is that the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s argument that the works were carried out to a reasonable standard. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Replacement Floor Coverings £ 1047.16 Not payable for the reasons explained in my statement. Defective installation, unreasonable standard of workmanship is evident through all floors. The Respondent disagrees. Any areas where defective workmanship has been identified by the Applicant have been rectified. The majority of the flooring did not require rectification. The floors were also left in a clean condition. The Tribunal determines that the charge is reasonable and payable. The reasons for the Tribunal’s determination is that the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s argument that the works were carried out to a reasonable standard. The Triubnal accepts the Respondent’s evidence that any defective workmanship has now been identified and remedied. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Door entry system £1967.17 I offer to pay £445.77 for the reasons explained in my statement. I would like to challenge the controlled access tab of service charge bill as I am also paying for a rental of this intercom system. The Respondent disagrees. The original system was antiquated and frequently broke down. The Applicant has failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that the costs were not reasonably incurred. No rent for a system has been included in the Annual Service Charge, only the cost of repairs to the system. The Tribunal determines to reduce the amount payable by 20%. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that whilst it accepts that the door entry system required replacement the cost of the installation appears excessive. It notes that following consultation the Respondent agreed to reconsider the installation noting the expense but there is no evidence of that reconsideration having taken place. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Asbestos £68.93 I offer to pay £68.93 upon receipt of demonstrable evidence of this work being carried out. Please see my statement document for details. Two reports relating to the completion of inspections have been included as evidence with the Respondent’s statement of case. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 CCTV drainage survey £244.14 I offer to pay £ 84.60 for the reasons explained in my statement. Please see my statement document for details. Works were carried out following the findings of a CCTV survey. No evidence has been presented by the Applicant to show that the costs were not reasonably incurred or works carried out to a reasonable standard. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Externally Mounted Cables £102.53 I offer to pay £41.01 for the reasons explained in my statement. Please see my statement document for details. The works were carried out and no evidence has been presented to show either that the works were not of a reasonable standard or that they were not reasonably incurred. The quotes received through the competitive tendering process suggest that the tendered cost of the successful contractor fell within the middle of the range of the quoted provided for this item. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Risk Assessment Method Statement £133.42 I offer to pay £13.34 for the reasons explained in my statement. Please see my statement document for details. The Respondent will not seek this cost. This charge is removed as a result of agreement between the parties. 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Preliminaries £ 4315.07 I offer to pay 5% of the value of total prelims and therefore offer £ 215.80 Please see my statement document for details. The Applicant has provided no evidence to show that costs under the heading of Preliminaries were not reasonably incurred. Nor has the Applicant provided evidence that any work delivered under heading of Preliminaries was not carried out to a reasonable standard. The Tribunal determines to reduce the sum that is payable under this heading and the following heading by £2491.21 This was a result of agreement between the Respondent and the Applicant. The Tribunal were unclear about the basis of the reduction and attempted to clarify it with the Respondent 21/22 invoice for Major works in 20/21 Management Fee of 10% £ 3265.12 Not payable Please see my statement document for details. The Respondent disagrees. Costs have been reasonably incurred in relation to the management of the works, consultation and liaison with leaseholders, and the invoicing of the cost of the works as service charge, as well responding to queries about invoices. See above. 20/21 Controlled Access £21.51 Not payable. Although I paid my service charges for year 20/21, I would like to challenge this cost because I am being charged to contribute to a mandatory upgrade of an intercom system and I am also paying a rental fee for it through my service charges. The Respondent disagrees. The costs which are included for the door entry system relate to repairs and maintenance of that system. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 20/21 Landlord Electric £41.24 Not Payable. Ancient light system which did not work properly were replaced with emergency lights which are on 24/7 The Respondent disagrees. The electric use during this period fell within a normal range. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that the charges were incurred and are at a reasonable level. 20/21 Repairs Maintenance - Asbestos inspection £16.49 Not payable unless demonstrable evidence is shared by the freeholder to show what works were carried out and when. The Respondent disagrees. Copies of all asbestos inspection reports are available. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 20/21 Administration Charge £85.60 Not payable give the building was never managed properly during my tenure since 2009. The Respondent disagrees. The costs incurred do not relate to the major works carried out. They relate to the invoicing of the Annual Service Charge, responding to resident queries, housing management services, procurement and management of services and minor repairs. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 19/20 Controlled Access £168.39 Not payable. I am being charged both for rental and mandatory upgrade/works. The Respondent disagrees. The costs which are included for the door entry system relate to repairs and maintenance of that system. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 19/20 Administration Charge £97 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The costs incurred do not relate to the major works carried out. They relate to the invoicing of the Annual Service Charge, responding to resident queries, housing management services, procurement and management of services and minor repairs. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that management has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. The management fees are reasonable. 19/20 Repairs Maintenance /Asbestos Survey £21.17 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. Copies of all asbestos inspection reports are available. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 18/19 Controlled Access £27.27 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The costs which are included for the door entry system relate to repairs and maintenance of that system. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 18/19 Landlord Electric £33.31 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The electric use during this period fell within a normal range. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that the charges were incurred and are at a reasonable level. 18/19 Repairs Maintenance £40.39 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. Works were required to maintain the building and the Applicant has provided no evidence to suggest that they were not reasonably incurred or that the repairs were not carried out to a reasonable standard. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 18/19 Administration Charge £85.60 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The costs incurred do not relate to the major works carried out. They relate to the invoicing of the Annual Service Charge, responding to resident queries, housing management services, procurement and management of services and minor repairs. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that management has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. The management fees are reasonable. 17/18 Major works invoice for roof works £1,163.76 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The works were required to address water ingress into the building, and have served that purpose. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 17/18 Controlled Access £26.72 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The costs which are included for the door entry system relate to repairs and maintenance of that system. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 17/18 Landlord Electric £24.38 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The electric use during this period fell within a normal range. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that the charges were incurred and are at a reasonable level. 17/18 Repairs Maintenance £46.58 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. Works were required to maintain the building and the Applicant has provided no evidence to suggest that they were not reasonably incurred or that the repairs were not carried out to a reasonable standard. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that this work has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. 17/18 Administration Charge £85.60 Not payable. Please see my statement for explanation. The Respondent disagrees. The costs incurred do not relate to the major works carried out. They relate to the invoicing of the Annual Service Charge, responding to resident queries, housing management services, procurement and management of services and minor repairs. The Tribunal determines that this sum is payable and reasonable. The reasons for the determination of the Tribunal are that there is clear evidence that management has been carried out and that the Applicant has an obligation under the lease to pay for such works. The management fees are reasonable. *1) Chargeable under lease? *2) Reasonable in amount/ standard? *3) Correctly demanded?