25 Gresley House, Deeley Road, London Sw8 4XD LON/00AY/LSC/2025/0737
DECISION
2 Decisions of the tribunal (1) The tribunal determines that the sum of £2,084.50 is payable by the Applicant in respect of the balance of service charges demanded for the major works, the subject of these proceedings. The application[1]The Applicant seeks a determination pursuant to s.27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) as to the amount of service charges payable by the Applicant in respect of the major works costs demanded on 2 October 2024. The hearing[2]The Applicant was represented by Mr Narayan at the hearing and the Respondent was represented by Ms Omar. Mr Roopnarine attended as a witness for Mr Patel and Miss Mouna Ennafii as witness for the Council[3]Immediately prior to the hearing the parties handed in further documents, namely skeleton arguments. The start of the hearing was delayed while the tribunal considered these new documents. In addition, we were provided the evening before the hearing with a bundle of papers on behalf of the Respondent running to some 420 pages, which together with the Applicants bundle resulted in some 660 pages of papers for us to potentially consider.[4]This did not cause particular difficulties, for as can be seen below the issues were severely curtailed. The background[5]The property which is the subject of this application is a three bedroomed flat on the fourth floor of a block of 25 flats, being part of a development known as Patmore Estate.[6]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.[7]The Applicant holds a long lease of the property dated 16 January 1989 made between the Respondent(1) and Keith and Louisa Anderson(2) 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. 3 The issues[8]Originally the issues related to service charges arising under major works in 2024 in respect of window repairs/replacement, decorating to the flat front door, external decoration and roof repairs.[9]At the start of the hearing the parties identified the relevant issues for determination as follows:(i) The sum payable by Mr Patel for double glazing works to his flat and a claim for £200 in respect of low water pressure.(ii) The outstanding sum was £2,084.50, which was agreed as an amount although Mr Patel challenged the make-up of same.(iii) There is no issue that under the terms of his lease Mr Patel has to pay 4.66% of the block costs and nor does Mr Patel challenge the s20 procedure or the actual costs of the works done.[10]Having heard evidence and submissions from the parties and considered all of the documents provided, the tribunal has made determinations on the various issues as follows. Double glazing and water pressure[11]As a result of the delivery of final accounts and spreadsheets from the Council Mr Patel was able to see how the Council had dealt with his liability. It was accepted by the Council that works to Mr Patel’s windows remains outstanding in the present sum of £651.52, which could be subject to change. This was because the contractor had not been able to complete the works. There had been problems gaining access. We heard from Mr Roopnarine, Mr Patel’s tenant, that his wife has limited mobility and that there had been problems allowing access. We were told however, that contractors had earlier gained access to undertake some works and it was not clear why these additional issues had not been completed at the same time.[12]The Council stated that the incomplete window costs had been omitted from Mr Patel’s liability, leaving £651.52 still to be charged. Mr Patel, through Mr Narayan submitted that it was unreasonable for Mr Patel to be asked to pay for others flat windows whilst work to his had not been completed.[13]It was pointed out by Ms Omar that any additional cost Mr Patel faced would have the benefit of contribution from the other tenants and that he would only pay 4.66% as provided for in his lease. 4[14]As to the water pressure this was something of a non-event. It seems from what Mr Roopnarine said, that following the installation of new water tanks it takes quite a long time for the water to reach the flat but that when it does it is satisfactory. Mr Narayan indicated that this was no longer an issue. In fact, it had not appeared in Mr Patel’s application. The tribunal’s decision[15]The tribunal determines that the balance of the amount payable in respect of the final account is £2,084.50. Reasons for the tribunal’s decision[16]We have some sympathy with Mr Patel in trying to fully understand the accounts. The invoice dated 2 October 2024 seeks £13,332 based on the estimated costs. We were told by Ms Ennafii in her statement that the sum of £13,332 included £1,844.50 attributable to Mr Pastel’s window repairs. However, on a final review of all additions and omissions this amount was reduced to £651.52. On 12 August 2025 the Council wrote to Mr Patel as follows: “FINAL ACCOUNT- C7137_ PATMORE EAST ESTATE PH 2 - WINDOW OVERHAULS, EXTERNAL DECORATIONS, AND ASSOCIATED REPAIRS The Council undertook the above project during the 2023/24 financial year and following completion of all the work the Final Account has now been audited and all the payments made to the contractor. The final cost of this work was lower than the estimated sum, which was billed in October 2024, this means that your proportion of the cost has reduced. The actual charge for your flat is therefore as follows: Estimated charge - £13,332.00 (billed 2024) Actual/final charge - £11,625.21 Difference = £1,706.79 (credit) The credit is worked out as follows: Under the terms of your lease, you are responsible for 4.660% of the Final account Block Charge of £249,468.02. You are therefore liable to contribute £11,625.21. 5 As you have already been invoiced £13,332.00, a credit of £1,706.79 will be applied to your service charge account. A copy of the Contract Instructions for your block, issued through the course of the contract and that make up the final account are available, and I can provide you with an electronic or hard copy on request…..”[17]At no point does it seem that the Council explained that part of the reduction was the fact that Mr Patel had not been charged for the balance of the works to his windows. However such an allowance has been made to the final amount sought from Mr Patel.[18]Mr Patel has paid £9540.71 of the £11,625.21 outstanding leaving the sum of £2,084.50 due and owing.[19]However, we are satisfied that the accounts do accurately reflect the actual costs incurred in respect of the major works and that it is correct that Mr Patel should contribute to all the windows in the block for which the Council has responsibility under the Fourth Schedule of the lease. In due course, when his windows are dealt with, he can expect the Council to reflect his liability under the lease, which is 4.66% of the final block charge of presently £651.52, which has yet to be levied.[20]No application was made under s20C of the Act, as Mr Narayan considered that the lease made no provision for the contractual recovery of costs in this case. Name: Andrew Dutton Date: 10 November 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 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. 6 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).