“f. So far as security is concerned the position put to Mr Paul was that a number of issues arose: · security guards were unlicensed and had now become concierge staff to overcome licensing difficulties. · the barrier at the gatehouse was left raised at night enabling free and unchecked access to the development. · Monitoring of access generally was poor. In response Mr Paul explained how the cost of security provision was apportioned on a 60/40 basis between the Warehouse and the Quay developments. Honeybourne Kenny, as the managers of the warehouse therefore took the lead responsibility as to organising the provision and it was not until recently that the Applicant had become aware of the extent of the use of unlicensed operatives, Mr Paul accepted the barrier may well be left up at night, without any direct information as to what the current position wants, but the problem if it remained down was the disturbance of the night-time comings and goings by people unable or unwilling to use the fob controls provided. Mr Paul’s view was that operatives were there to monitor, which they did with CCTV systems, rather than patrol and as far as he was concerned a daybook was kept to make appropriate records. He was however somewhat unsure of that last position and indeed when the book was last seen. When questioned by the Tribunal he affirmed that the presence of security staff contributed significantly to a better environment than if the service, as currently existed, was not provided at all.”
“It is not clear from the decision in relation to the charges for parking control signage that the LVT determined that it was not reasonable to include these within the service charge rather than that, of the two potential methods of charging, they regarded as preferable the levying of higher charges against offenders. The latter would not justify the disallowance of the charges. There is apparent force also in the contentions raised in the applicant’s grounds. The landlord’s treatment of the signage charges was one of the LVT’s reasons for more than halving the total amount charged for management and administration costs, and it is therefore appropriate that permission to appeal should cover this matter to. But there is also apparent force in other contentions raised by the applicant.”
“During argument .... it was indicated that registrars of county courts and those practising in this field were finding difficulty in dealing with the burden of proof when considering applications for declarations under the Housing Acts. Having examined those statutory provisions, we can find no reason for suggesting that there is any presumption for or against a finding of reasonableness of standard or of costs. The court will reach its conclusion on the whole of the evidence. If the normal rules of pleadings are met, there should be no difficulty. The landlord in making his claims for maintenance contributions will no doubt succeed, unless a defence is served in saying that the standard all costs are unreasonable. The tenant in such a pleading will need to specify the item complained of and the general nature - but not the evidence - of his case. No doubt discovery will need to be ordered at an early stage, but there should be no problem in each side knowing the case it has to meet provided that the court maintains a firm hold over its procedures. If the tenant gives evidence establishing a prima facie case, then it will be for the landlord to meet those allegations and ultimately the court will reach its decisions.”