FirstPort Property Services Limited — tribunal record

“No explanation was offered by the Respondents for this increase which was a doubling of the charge.”

“The Tribunal also does not consider it reasonable for the Respondent to wait two years before carrying out a tendering process.”

“The Respondent failed to address the significant increase in Grounds Maintenance costs in a timely manner, although the tendering process now being undertaken shows that alternative, less expensive contractors were available.”

“although an explanation of this issue was provided in the Respondent's Statement of Case this was late in the day. An earlier explanation by the Respondent in its capacity as Manager rather than a rejection of the argument might have settled this issue.”

“Bearing in mind that the dispute ostensibly concerned less than £500 the bundle of documents put before the tribunal was inordinately large, at some 730 pages. Unhelpfully, the numbering of the paper bundles and the eBundle differed by between 2 and 7 pages.”

“The Respondent did not comply with the directions; instead it wrote to the Tribunal, via its solicitors, to indicate it would concede the sums challenged by the Applicant (£134.41 and £101.61).”

“the Respondent has not been as engaging as it might in the face of the Applicant's questions, and there has been a lack of transparency.”

“Needless to say, the Tribunal is most concerned that this substantial sum of money has not been recovered. The First Respondent seemingly held that money in trust for the leaseholders. ARMA members must comply the RICS Service Charge Management Code. At 7.10 the Code makes clear that 'service charge funds for each property should be identifiable and either placed in a separate bank account, or in a single client / trust account where the account records of the manager separately identify the fund attributable to each property.' Whilst the First Respondent might have done this itself, it does not appear that this fiduciary duty was thought to extend to ensuring the monies went into a trust account when this substantial sum of money was passed to Rylands. The First Respondent was content to transfer it to a 'normal account', which we understood to mean was not a trust account of the kind envisaged. Moreover, we are not convinced on the evidence before us that adequate steps have since been taken to recover these monies.”

“It is a concerning feature of this case that the Respondents' cases have been advanced on shifting sands.”

“We have been troubled by the fact that the First Respondent's case has frequently chopped and changed, with matters being asserted and then (when subject to scrutiny) being abandoned in favour of a different argument.”

“The Tribunal agrees with the Respondents that this application resulted from a request by the landlord's side to seek clarity for something drafted by its side, such that it would be unfair to expect them to pay.”

“It notes that the Applicant was substantially successful in its application, but that the result was obvious and did not require an application to the Tribunal and was taken forward out of an abundance of caution.”