Case No LON/00BE/LSC/2024/0329-APT-301-BECK-HOUSE-3-NEW-LION-WAY
Between
Peter WilksApplicant(1) London & Quadrant Housing Trust (2) H4 Residents Management Co LtdRespondent
Before
Judge TuejeMr K Ridgeway MRICS(1) Mr Evans, counsel Mr Shaw, Head of Homeowner and Leasehold Support (2) Mr Castle, counsel for the ApplicantDate 9 October 2025Hearing 2025-04-04Property: London, SE17 1GRType of application: of service charge under s27A and Tenant Act 1985 Tueje
REASONS
[151]Mr Wilks’ initial objection to this charge was based on L&Q residents being excluded from receiving concierge services, and yet they seemed to be charged service charges for concierge services in 2020/2021 amounting to £1,751. But this item is no longer disputed. Mr Wilks accepts the Second Respondent’s explanation that this cost relates to the 5 members of staff who supported L&Q’s residents during the moving in period. The associated costs are described as “concierge” services because at the time, there was no other way they could be categorised on the Second Respondent’s payroll system. Mr Wilks accepts that this cost does not relate to concierge services, but to the five members of staff referred to. Security The Tribunal’s Decision[152]We find the £540 claimed by the Second Respondent is reasonable. The Second Respondent having agreed to refund security costs for Clipfine for 2020/2021 in the amount of £30,031.03, we find the remaining security costs of £540.60 claimed by the Second Respondent for the period 2020/2021 is reasonable. Reasons for the Tribunal’s Decision[153]Prior to practical completion of the BTR properties and prior to commencement of the Second Respondent’s security contract with Securitas, the Second Respondent arranged security through Clipfine. In her witness statement, Ms Barbabosa states that the Second Respondent absorbed most of these costs relating to the 2020/2021 service charge period, which Mr Wilks accepts.[154]Mr Wilks provides no grounds for objecting to the remaining £540.60 claimed for security during this period, and we consider the amount claimed is reasonable. MJ Signs The Tribunal’s Decision[155]No Tribunal determination is required. Reasons[156]Mr Wilks accepts the Second Respondent’s explanation that the actual cost claimed from L&Q is £820.86, and not £4,46.00, therefore he is not challenging the actual cost being claimed. Waste removal costs The Tribunal’s Decision[157]This item does not require determination. Reasons[158]£2,374 was originally claimed for 2022/2023, which the Second Respondent has agreed to refund. Refuse costs The Tribunal’s Decision[159]This item does not require determination. Reasons[160]£540 was originally claimed for 2020/2021, which the Second Respondent has agreed to refund. Management fee – L&Q The Tribunal’s Decision[161]This does not require determination. Reasons[162]The parties have reached an agreement on this item. Management fee – Landlease The Tribunal’s Decision[163]This does not require determination. We find the reasonable cost for the Second Respondent’s management fee to be the amount claimed less a 33% deduction, leaving the amount payable to be 67% of the amount claimed. Reasons[164]The parties have reached an agreement on this item. Our reasons for applying a 33% reduction are set out below.164.1 In summary, Mr Wilks argued that there should be a discount on the management fee for every discount upheld. During his oral evidence, he equated this to any other service one receives, where the amount paid should reflect the level of service provided.164.2 The Respondent’s primary position is that there should be no discount because Mr Wilks has had the benefit of the Second Respondent’s management of the Plot. Mr Castle further argued that the discount Mr Wilks seeks would be disproportionate when taking into account that services have been provided and Mr Wilks’ dispute is largely about apportionment. Mr Castle added that the level of reduction Mr Wilks is seeking risks straying into compensation164.3 In arriving at a 33% discount, we take into account that while Mr Wilks has secured a discount either by agreement or by our determination, on more items than not, there are also other management services which the Second Respondent has provided which are not the subject of this application. It is apparent from the relevant schedules to the Headlease, that there are various other services the Second Respondent provides as part of its management function about which no complaint has been made. On the other hand, although we accept that the dispute is primarily about apportionment rather the provision or adequacy of the services provided, we consider that apportionment is an important part of the management function, in respect of which there are numerous instances where the Second Respondent’s original apportionment has been reduced. Certification of accounts The Tribunal’s Decision[165]This does not require determination. Reasons[166]The parties have reached an agreement on this item. Transparency The Tribunal’s Decision[167]The right to withhold service charges under section 21A does not apply in this case.[168]Mr Wilks asks: Is it reasonable for Beck House residents to withhold the service charge while section 22/23 requests are not fulfilled for 2020/21 and 2021/22?[169]The issue of withholding service charge payment is dealt with at paragraph 177 below. Reasons for the Tribunal’s Decision[170]It is common ground that the headlease requires that the Building Service Charge will be “a fair and proper proportion” of expenditure, with paragraph 5 of Part V of the Second Schedule making similar provision for the Apartment Service Charge, Courtyard Service Charge and the Servicing Area Service Charge to also be a fair and proper proportion of the relevant expenditure.[171]Mr Wilks makes a broad complaint regarding what he sees as a lack of transparency in the way the Second Respondent deals with the service charges.[172]One aspect of this complaint is that both Landlease and L&Q have been slow to, or failed to, respond to his communications, and when they do respond, they fail to take responsibility for the issues raised, or provide an explanation and/or documentation which is difficult to understand. Against a background of increasing service charge costs, Mr Wilks finds this frustrating.[173]To support his argument regarding transparency, Mr Wilks cites the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code which states a property should be managed “… on as open and transparent basis as is practicable…”[174]Mr Wilks points out that following his request under sections 22 and 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, requesting various invoices for the service charge years 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, around 24 requested invoices have not been provided.[175]He further relies on section 21A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which allows a leaseholder to withhold payment of service charges where the landlord has failed to comply with section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.[176]In its statement of case and skeleton argument, the Second Respondent treats transparency as a non-issue, stating in the latter: Item #17 poses the legal question of whether Section 21A of the 1985 Act allows A to withhold payment of service charges if R2 has failed to comply with Section 22 or 23 of the 1985 Act. The answer is simply no, so no further time is required on this issue.[177]We do not consider this aspect of Mr Wilks’ transparency argument has merit. Section 21A states that a leaseholder may withhold service charges where a landlord has failed to comply with section 21. However, Mr Wilks seeks to withhold payment on the grounds that there has allegedly been a failure to comply with his requests made under sections 22 and 23, which sections are not covered by the right under section 21A to withhold payment of service charges. Compliance The Tribunal’s Decision[178]The Second Respondent has not complied with service charge provisions at paragraph 3 of Part V of the Second Schedule of the headlease. Reasons for the Tribunal’s Decision[179]There is an additional aspect to Mr Wilks’ transparency argument. He argues that the Second Respondent has transferred certain items of service charge expenditure (e.g. staffing costs, electricity, cleaning and insurance) to different service charge schedules over time. In doing so, he says the Second Respondent has engineered a situation where the costs charged in respect of L&Q properties have increased, and therefore, ultimately the amount of service charges demanded from him have increased.[180]Mr Wilks argues that being transparent requires the Second Respondent to disclose the invoices for all schedules, so that he can check these to ensure he has not been charged costs excluded under his Shared Ownership lease, and so that he can ascertain whether a fair and proper proportion of costs have been charged. Mr Wilks seemed to appreciate this would be a substantial amount of documentation, but he argues that is necessary to ensure transparency. He says that because the headlease allows the Second Respondent to reapportion service charge costs, visibility is even more important.[181]L&Q supported greater transparency, but argued that providing annotated accounts and the relevant service charge schedules would be sufficient.[182]The argument was framed by reference to the headlease. Firstly, to the definition of “Building” under the lease, which reads: the land and premises situate at and the buildings and other structures for the time being erected upon part of title number TGL418288 the extent of which land and premises is shown edged red on Plan [4] subject to variation from time to time by the addition of any other land which the Landlord or the Superior Landlord declare to be part of the Building and the removal of any land or lands by the Landlord which may include without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing land to be dedicated as public open space[183]It is common ground that the area edged in red is the Elephant Park Estate, and not the “Building”. It is also common ground that the definition was intended to refer to Plan 3, which shows Plot H4 edged in red.[184]L&Q builds on the above definition of the Building to argue that the lease requires the Second Respondent to provide accounts information relating to the Building, namely Plot H4. Whereas the Second Respondent has been providing accounting information limited to those parts of Plot H4 which are let to L&Q.[185]L&Q maintains that the Second Respondent is therefore failing to comply with the lease (see paragraph 19 above). It further argues that in failing to comply with the lease, the accounting information provided prevents L&Q from being able to ascertain whether the Second Respondent is claiming from L&Q a fair and proper proportion of the service charge expenditure.[186]The Second Respondent offers several responses. First, it states that the lease simply requires it to provide a written summary (or statement) of the Building Service Charge, certified by a qualified accountant, confirming that the statement is a fair summary, and it is adequately supported by receipts and other documents. In other words, the lease does not require the Second Respondent to provide accounting information that enables L&Q to ascertain whether it has been charged a fair and proper proportion. It merely requires a qualified accountant certifies that the statement is supported by adequate documentation, and that the statement is a fair summary of the Building Service Charge for that accounting year.[187]The Second Respondent also argues that paragraph 6 of Part V of the Second Schedule (see paragraph 19 above) envisages that some costs might be excluded from the Building Service Charge accounts. Furthermore, according to the Second Respondent, because the costs that have been excluded relate to the BTR and commercial units which L&Q do not contribute towards, excluding the accounting information relating to those parts of Plot H4 is not a failure to comply with the lease. The Second Respondent continues that if there is any concern about whether service charge costs are fair or reasonable, an application to the Tribunal under section 27A can be made for a determination as to whether the service charges are reasonable.[188]Finally, it is understood that the Second Respondent is also concerned about the commercial sensitivity of providing all the accounting information that Mr Wilks has requested, and even the lesser accounting information that L&Q has requested (see the e-mail from L&Q to Mr Wilks sent on 30th October 2023 at page 1450).[189]Taking each of the Second Respondent’s points in turn. We do not consider paragraph 6 of Part V of the Second Schedule allows the Second Respondent to exclude the accounting information of any part of Plot H4. Paragraph 3 of Part V of the Second Schedule does not expressly state the requirement to provide a certified statement is subject to paragraph 6 of Part V of the Second Schedule.[190]In any event, paragraph 6 of Part V of the Second Schedule refers to “items” of expenditure, it cannot sensibly be taken to mean entire schedules of expenditure relating to other premises within Plot H4 can be withheld. Yet further, paragraph 6 of Part V of the Second Schedule allows the Second Respondent to claim for items of service charge expenditure in subsequent years where the item has not been included in the accounting information for the accounting year in which the expenditure or liability was incurred. That provision does not apply to the BTR and commercial premises on Plot H4, because, as the Second Respondent makes clear, it will not seek to charge L&Q for those service charges in future years.[191]As to Mr Castle’s argument that Mr Wilks and/or L&Q can apply to the Tribunal if they are concerned about the reasonableness of the service charges. We find this submission to be surprising and unsatisfactory. Although we were told the headlease makes no provision for the Second Respondent to recover its legal costs, the Shared Ownership lease allows L&Q to recover its legal costs, exposing Mr Wilks to the risk of legal costs if he applies to the Tribunal in order to obtain closer scrutiny regarding service charges. There is also the time and stress of bringing an application, and the Tribunal’s resources being used in this way, which we consider would be disproportionate.[192]In any event, we agree with L&Q that paragraph 3 of Part V of the Second Schedule requires the Second Respondent to provide an annual statement relating to all of the H4 Plot, not just those parts of the plot that are let to L&Q. Affordability The Tribunal’s Decision[193]The Tribunal makes no determination regarding the affordability of the service charges Reasons[194]Regarding the lack of affordability, we were told that there are strong feelings amongst a number of Beck House residents about this issue; their statements are in the bundle and Mr Wilks has included extracts from many of their statements within his written submissions.[195]One concern Mr Wilks raises is due to the multiple tenures. The BTR residents do not pay service charges, so the communal costs relating to the BTR are paid by Lendlease. Therefore, Mr Wilks argues, Lendlease has a financial incentive to apportion service charges to reduce the amount of service charges paid in respect of the BTR properties, which would be likely to result in a corresponding increase in the amount charged to L&Q, and consequently, to Beck House leaseholders. He argues this is a potential conflict, which is exacerbated by Ms Barbabosa holding the position of Head of BTR at Lendlease while also being a director of H4 Management Company Ltd.[196]Surprisingly, when asked during her oral evidence, Ms Barbabosa not only denied there was an actual conflict, but said she could not see any potential conflict of interest with this situation.[197]In his Written Legal Argument, Mr Wilks requests the Tribunal appoints a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 so as to avoid a conflict of interest. However, there has been no formal application before the Tribunal to appoint a manager.[198]As to the substantive issue of affordability, Mr Wilks says his annual service charge has increased 149% in 3 years. For the year 1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025, Mr Wilks states he has paid £6,322, noting that no major works have been paid for during this period.[199]Mr Wilks argues that under its section 106 obligations the Second Respondent was required to ensure service charges were maintained at an affordable and proportionate level. He continues that service charge levels were initially set in accordance with those obligations, but that after that criteria was met, he believes in subsequent years the Second Respondent has deliberately increased service charges to maximise its profit on the BTR properties, at the expense of L&Q properties, who have seen various service charge costs reapportioned to facilitate this, resulting in substantial increases in their service charge costs.[200]Mr Wilks refers to the obligations under the section 106 agreement, which includes establishing and maintaining service charges at a reasonable and affordable level. While Mr Wilks notes that underlessees are not a party to that agreement, he states that they are the main beneficiaries.[201]Therefore, Mr Wilks argues, when considering what are reasonable service charges, because Beck House was built as affordable housing, pursuant to the section 106 agreement, the reasonable level of service charges should be affordable, and lower than service charges payable in respect of leasehold properties in the open market. He cites part of the obligations imposed by Southwark pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which prohibits charges being levied on leaseholders in order to subsidise costs payable in respect of BTR residents.[202]In particular, he relies on paragraph 5.9.3 of the section 106 agreement, which reads (see page 530): The Affordable Housing Service Charge shall be affordable and a fair and reasonable proportion of the actual costs incurred or anticipated in relation to any Affordable Housing and the Developers shall work together with the Registered Provider to take reasonable steps (including in the design and construction of the Affordable Housing) establish and maintain affordable housing service charged at a fair and reasonable level PROVIDED THAT at no time show the Market Units subsidise the services provided to Affordable Housing[203]In our judgment, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine whether service charges are reasonable by reference to whether the costs are affordable. That is because the statutory assessment of the reasonableness of the amount of costs at section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that costs are payable if they are reasonably incurred.[204]The phrase “reasonably incurred” was defined in Waaler as follows (at paragraph 37): If the landlord has chosen a course of action which leads to a reasonable outcome the costs of pursuing that course of action will have been reasonably incurred, even if there was another cheaper outcome which was also reasonable.[205]This definition does not provide scope to find cost are unreasonable on the grounds that the costs are unaffordable.[206]Aside from the jurisdictional issues, there are practical problems of assessing reasonableness on the grounds of affordability. That is because any meaningful assessment of affordability requires a consideration of whether the global service charge costs are affordable. However, section 19 is concerned with the reasonableness of individual items of service charge expenditure, which is incompatible with a global assessment of affordability. Costs[207]The parties have agreed the position regarding costs, and we make an order under rule 13 to reflect that as follows:207.1 An order under section 20C and paragraph 5A of schedule 11 in relation to L&Q, who states that in any event it will not seek to recover its legal costs through the service charge fund;207.2 An order under section 20C paragraph 5A of schedule 11 in relation to the Second Respondent who states that in any event there is no provision to recover its costs under the lease;207.3 The orders under section 20C paragraph 5A of schedule 11 apply to all those individuals listed in Appendix 1; and207.4 An order under rule 13(2) that LQ and the Second Respondent shall each refund 50% of the application and hearing fees totalling £330 that was paid by Mr Wilks. Name: Judge Tueje Date: 2nd September 2025 Amended on 9th October 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. 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 Name Apartment Patricio Macadam Ugarte Apartment 102 Beck House Sergio Beleno Apartment 103 Beck House L J Atkins Apartment 104 Beck House Piia Tonder Apartment 105 Beck House Santiago Dosal Ariza Apartment 106 Beck House No response Apartment 107 Beck House Sebastian Londono Sierra Apartment 201 Beck House Stefania Sola Collado Apartment 202 Beck House William Curtis and Jesse White Apartment 203 Beck House Kathyn Nguyen Apartment 204 Beck House Luis Siles Apartment 205 Beck House Munah Zreika Apartment 206 Beck House Applicant Apartment 301 Beck House Natalia Nieto Campallo Apartment 303 Beck House Lewis Taylor Apartment 304 Beck House Azry Amran Apartment 305 Beck House Esther Lozano Apartment 306 Beck House Joshua Chivers Apartment 307 Beck House Maria Alejandra Jaen Ruda Apartment 401 Beck House Scott Pumar Apartment 402 Beck House Deborah Oluwole Apartment 403 Beck House Sheila McDonagh Apartment 404 Beck House Alvaro Lopez Rodriguez Apartment 405 Beck House Jasmine Luk Apartment 406 Beck House Elliot Tilbey Apartment 407 Beck House Oana Birsan Apartment 502 Beck House John Brooks Apartment 503 Beck House Jonathan Christer Apartment 504 Beck House Kelvin Hall Apartment 505 Beck House Timo Rumble Apartment 506 Beck House Faizi Freemantle Apartment 507 Beck House No response Apartment 601 Beck House Roussin Nicolas Apartment 602 Beck House Roman Gomez Gomez Apartment 603 Beck House Sarah McIntosh Apartment 604 Beck House Stephen Crosot Apartment 605 Beck House Ewan Alexander Macgregor Apartment 606 Beck House Zoe Christer Apartment 607 Beck House Iryna Chaus Apartment 701 Beck House Cherise Douglas Apartment 702 Beck House E Reus Apartment 703 Beck House Stephen Mounsley Apartment 704 Beck House Matilda Travers Apartment 705 Beck House Lee Redpath Apartment 706 Beck House Appendix 2 Extracts from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 18.— Meaning of “service charge” and “relevant costs” .(1) In the following provisions of this Act “service charge” means an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent— (a) which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord’s costs of management, and (b) the whole or part of which varies or may vary according to the relevant costs.(2) The relevant costs are the costs or estimated costs incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of the landlord, or a superior landlord, in connection with the matters for which the service charge is payable.(3) For this purpose— (a) “costs” includes overheads, and (b) costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period 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 21.— Request for summary of relevant costs. (1) A tenant may required the landlord in writing to supply him with a written summary of the costs incurred— (a) if the relevant accounts are made up for periods of twelve months, in the last such period ending not later than the date of the request, or (b) if the accounts are not so made up, in the period of twelve months ending with the date of the request, and which are relevant costs in relation to the service charges payable or demanded as payable in that or any other period. (2) If the tenant is represented by a recognised tenants’ association and he consents, the request may be made by the secretary of the association instead of by the tenant and may then be for the supply of the summary to the Secretary. (3) A request is duly served on the landlord if it is served on— (a) an agent of the landlord named as such in the rent book or similar document, or (b) the person who receives the rent on behalf of the landlord; and a person on whom a request is so served shall forward it as soon as may be to the landlord.(4) The landlord shall comply with the request within one month of the request or within six months of the end of the period referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) whichever is the later.(5) The summary shall state whether any of the costs relate to works in respect of which a grant has been or is to be paid under section 523 of the Housing Act 1985 (assistance for provision of separate service pipe for water supply) or any provision of Part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (grants, &c. for renewal of private sector housing) or any corresponding earlier enactment and set out the costs in a way showing how they have been or will be reflected in demands for service charges and, in addition, shall summarise each of the following items, namely— (a) any of the costs in respect of which no demand for payment was received by the landlord within the period referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b), (b) any of the costs in respect of which— (i) a demand for payment was so received, but (ii) no payment was made by the landlord within that period, and (c) any of the costs in respect of which— (i) a demand for payment was so received, and (ii) payment was made by the landlord within that period, and specify the aggregate of any amounts received by the landlord down to the end of that period on account of service charges in respect of relevant dwellings and still standing to the credit of the tenants of those dwellings at the end of that period (5A) In subsection (5)“relevant dwelling” means a dwelling whose tenant is either— (a) the person by or with the consent of whom the request was made, or (b) a person whose obligations under the terms of his lease as regards contributing to relevant costs relate to the same costs as the corresponding obligations of the person mentioned in paragraph (a) above relate to. (5B) The summary shall state whether any of the costs relate to works which are included in the external works specified in a group repair scheme, within the meaning of Chapter II of Part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 or any corresponding earlier enactment, in which the landlord participated or is participating as an assisted participant.(6) If the service charges in relation to which the costs are relevant costs as mentioned in subsection (1) are payable by the tenants of more than four dwellings, the summary shall be certified by a qualified accountant as— (a) in his opinion a fair summary complying with the requirements of subsection (5), and (b) being sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts and other documents which have been produced to him. 21A Withholding of service charges (1) A tenant may withhold payment of a service charge if— (a) the landlord has not supplied a document to him by the time by which he is required to supply it under section 21, or (b) the form or content of a document which the landlord has supplied to him under that section (at any time) does not conform exactly or substantially with the requirements prescribed by regulations under subsection (4) of that section. (2) The maximum amount which the tenant may withhold is an amount equal to the aggregate of— (a) the service charges paid by him in the accounting period to which the document concerned would or does relate, and (b) so much of the aggregate amount required to be dealt with in the statement of account for that accounting period by section 21(1)(c)(i) as stood to his credit. (3) An amount may not be withheld under this section— (a) in a case within paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after the document concerned has been supplied to the tenant by the landlord, or (b) in a case within paragraph (b) of that subsection, after a document conforming exactly or substantially with the requirements prescribed by regulations under section 21(4) has been supplied to the tenant by the landlord by way of replacement of the one previously supplied. (4) If, on an application made by the landlord to a leasehold valuation tribunal, the tribunal determines that the landlord has a reasonable excuse for a failure giving rise to the right of a tenant to withhold an amount under this section, the tenant may not withhold the amount after the determination is made. (5) Where a tenant withholds a service charge under this section, any provisions of the tenancy relating to non-payment or late payment of service charges do not have effect in relation to the period for which he so withholds it. 22.— Request to inspect supporting accounts &c. (1) This section applies where a tenant, or the secretary of a recognised tenants’ association, has obtained such a summary as is referred to in section 21(1) (summary of relevant costs), whether in pursuance of that section or otherwise. (2) The tenant, or the secretary with the consent of the tenant, may within six months of obtaining the summary require the landlord in writing to afford him reasonable facilities— (a) for inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary, and (b) for taking copies or extracts from them. (3) A request under this section is duly served on the landlord if it is served on— (a) an agent of the landlord named as such in the rent book or similar document, or (b) the person who receives the rent on behalf of the landlord; and a person on whom a request is so served shall forward it as soon as may be to the landlord. (4) The landlord shall make such facilities available to the tenant or secretary for a period of two months beginning not later than one month after the request is made. (5) The landlord shall— (a) where such facilities are for the inspection of any documents, make them so available free of charge; (b) where such facilities are for the taking of copies or extracts, be entitled to make them so available on payment of such reasonable charge as he may determine. (6) The requirement imposed on the landlord by subsection (5)(a) to make any facilities available to a person free of charge shall not be construed as precluding the landlord from treating as part of his costs of management any costs incurred by him in connection with making those facilities so available. 23.— Request relating to information held by superior landlord. (1) If a request under section 21 (request for summary of relevant costs) relates in whole or in part to relevant costs incurred by or on behalf of a superior landlord, and the landlord to whom the request is made is not in possession of the relevant information— (a) he shall in turn make a written request for the relevant information to the person who is his landlord (and so on, if that person is not himself the superior landlord), (b) the superior landlord shall comply with that request within a reasonable time, and (c) the immediate landlord shall then comply with the tenant’s or secretary’s request, or that part of it which relates to the relevant costs incurred by or on behalf of the superior landlord, within the time allowed by section 21 or such further time, if any, as is reasonable in the circumstances. (2) If a request under section 22 (request for facilities to inspect supporting accounts, &c.) relates to a summary of costs incurred by or on behalf of a superior landlord— (a) the landlord to whom the request is made shall forthwith inform the tenant or secretary of that fact and of the name and address of the superior landlord, and (b) section 22 shall then apply to the superior landlord as it applies to the immediate landlord.