HML Group — tribunal record

“The Respondent's explanation as to why the guarantee had not been relevant was not satisfactory. The Respondent was unable to say why the insurer had refused cover. The reason for this was the managing agent's personnel had changed with the result that not only was there no one who knew what had happened, but the relevant employees emails had been deleted.”

“The Applicant failed to do this and the Application was struck out.”

“The Tribunal notes that service charge accounts, both budget and actual can be difficult to interpret, and a perceived lack of transparency and collaboration on behalf of the managing agent.”

“a lack of meaningful communication has contributed to the need for this hearing.”

“particularly with the perceived lack of explanation or transparency, for an Order to be made under section 20C of the 1985 Act”

“Given that the work to replace the existing Hydrovar pump control system has been required since 2020 the application has clearly not been considered urgent by the Applicant.”

“due to a failure by the Applicant to comply with its requirements further Directions were made on 27 July 2022”

“There has been very little effort on the part of the Respondent to assist the Tribunal, producing only a late and sparse response and no new documentation.”

“The Respondent has, however, failed to produce its bank statements so as to show that its explanation is correct. Nor has it provided any explanation for its failure to do so. Even if there were issues of confidentiality, these could have been easily overcome by redaction.”

“Apart from the immediate costs of the pump and the door, there was no evidence available to the Tribunal to show that any particular items of future expenditure had been identified as of major significance, had been costed and a calculation been made of the sums required proportionately from the tenants to meet those future costs.”

“The Tribunal has found this all to be very confusing. There is no evidence that the Tribunal can see to support the levying of any charge (by HML) for company secretarial work; this does not appear to form part of the Gordon and Company management agreement with the Respondent, even if that agreement was assigned to it. Nor is there any explanation as to the £70 credit note.”

“The Respondent might also wish to consider evidence supportive of the assignment of the Management Agreement in the event that there are further challenges.”