All Units in Yorks House, 5 Coal Lane , London SW9 8GG LON/00AY/LSC/2023/0313
DECISION
[1]The Applicants in this case are the leaseholders of Yorks House, 5 Coal Lane , London SW98GG (“The Applicants”). The Respondent is freeholder of the premises. The Applicants were ably represented by Ms Cameron who is one of the leaseholders who lives in Flat 19 . The Respondents were represented by Ms Coleman their solicitor.[2]The building is made up of 1 and 2 bedroom flats in a purpose built block built in 2019. The estate is made up of three blocks, namely Yorks House, Leno House and Antiopa House. The only block involved in the application was Yorks House a block of 24 flats of whom 15 are Applicants. Service charges for the period 2020 – 2023 inclusive were challenged. It was said at the time of the application that the value of the dispute was £187027. The parties prepared a Scott Schedule. For future reference they should include details within the schedule rather than making reference to other documents which made evaluation difficult. We were however assisted by Ms Cameron and Ms Coleman. In addition Michael Admas gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The relevant law[3]The law applicable in the present case was limited. It was essentially a challenge to the reasonableness of the costs. There was no challenge in relation to payability under the lease, an alleged failure to consult or limitation.[4]The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985,s.19 states the following: 19.— Limitation of service charges: reasonableness.[1]Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period—(a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and(b) where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard; and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.[2]Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise. ….[5]The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to address the issues in s.19 is contained in s.27A Landlord and Tenant 1985 which states the following: 27A Liability to pay service charges: jurisdiction(1) An application may be made to [the appropriate tribunal]2 for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to— (a) the person by whom it is payable, (b) the person to whom it is payable, (c) the amount which is payable, (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable.(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not any payment has been made.(3) An application may also be made to [the appropriate tribunal]2 for a determination whether, if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or management of any specified description, a service charge would be payable for the costs and, if it would, as to— (a) the person by whom it would be payable, (b) the person to whom it would be payable, (c) the amount which would be payable, (d) the date at or by which it would be payable, and (e) the manner in which it would be payable.(4) No application under subsection (1) or (3) may be made in respect of a matter which— (a) has been agreed or admitted by the tenant, (b) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (c) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (d) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement.(5) But the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment. The issues[6]The lease terms and their application were not in issue and were in any event uncontentious. It is not intended to rehearse the terms here. The main point of challenge by the Applicants was the reasonableness of charges. Taking each broad challenge in turn. Maintain bin cycle and frontage[7]There was general dissatisfaction with the cleaning service. The cleaning was done by GFM. The head of this firm had attended site and expressed dissatisfaction with the service. The Respondents said GFM attended once a week. The Tribunal were shown photographs. It is clear that the service is not the best and we make a deduction across all relevant years of 20%. Account management fee[8]The Applicants conceded this challenge and the sums are allowed. Gate maintenance[9]The gate in question had been out of action since 2021 when it was taken off its hinges by the rubbish collectors. One of the four gates was not therefore working throughout the period in question. Accordingly, we reduce the gate maintenance charge by 25% for each year in question. Lighting protection[10]No decision was required. Water - landlord[11]This is the cost of the communal water supply. This was not seriously challenged and is allowed in full Electricity external areas[12]The leaseholders wanted to know how the sum was calculated but no serious challenge was brought. The sum is allowed in full. Electricity light flick testing[13]This sum is allowed in full as it was reasonable. Gate telephone lines[14]No decision was required as no charge made. Repairs and renewals[15]The leaseholders said that a box had been left by Taylor Wimpy, the developers at the front of the estate. It was an eyesore. Eventually the box was removed and they were recharged. In addition, there was a charge for a fence repair which from photographs looked like a poor repair. The leaseholders said the repairs were carried out by the cleaners. The cleaners had charged for a jet wash which did not take place. The Tribunal deducts a third of the invoice for the jet wash and box removal and 50% of the fence repair cost. Gate entry system[16]No decision was required as no charge made. Emergency service[17]The leaseholders said they had rung the number but it had not been answered. There was general dissatisfaction with the service and 50% deduction is made for the years in question. Health and safety fire risk[18]The leaseholders conceded this sum. Management fees[19]The leaseholders said the service was poor. The gardens were in a state. There had been 5 property managers in 5 years. Money had been spent when it was not needed. The example of a replacement PIB box was given which in the leaseholder’s view was overpriced. The leaseholders did not provide comparators yet the service did seem wanting accordingly we reduce the unit cost of the management fee from £262.65 to £240 for each of the years in question. Accounting fees[20]This was conceded by the leaseholders. Bank charges[21]No decision required. Postage[22]This is allowed in full. Building insurance[23]This was conceded by the leaseholders. Insurance valuation[24]This sum is reasonable and is allowed in full. Site inspections[25]This is a prudent task and the charge is reasonable and allowed in full. Podium A/B Maintenance[26]The leaseholders said that the service was poor and this had been accepted by the head of GFM. The Respondents said the charge was for a 45 minute visit to each Podium. The Respondents conceded a 10% deduction for this item and we agree with this across the years in question. Internal cleaning[27]The leaseholders said the service was poor and there had been a number of complaints. We accept the criticism and allow a 20% deduction over the years in question. Window cleaning[28]No decision required as not challenged. Refuse strategy[29]This charge met the cost of moving the bins after they had been collected at the estate. This is an essential task and the sum is allowed in full Lift maintenance[30]This sum was conceded by the leaseholders. CCTV[31]Not in dispute. Solar panel maintenance[32]No decision required as not challenged. Abseil points[33]Not in dispute. Plant pump and substation, boiler maintenance, tank maintenance, gas safety certificate.[34]These were conceded by the leaseholders HIU servicing[35]Not in issue. Sprinklers, electricity, lift lines, plant room phone and routers[36]Conceded by leaseholders. Repairs and renewals[37]The leaseholders disputed three invoices from Drainscan (drain investigation), GFM (missing glazing beads) and Enterprise (bike store ). These works were reasonable save that GFM didn’t carry out any works accordingly we deduct the charge of £150. Communal satellite, ROSPA, Fire safety, dry risers and engineering insurance[38]Conceded by leaseholders. s.20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985[39]This was a genuine application which was cogently argued by Ms Cameron on behalf of the leaseholders. The Applicants have been successful albeit partially. We have no hesitation in exercising our discretion under s.20C and disallowing the Respondents from recovering their costs of the proceedings from the service charge. Judge Shepherd 18th April 2024 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).