Parkgate Aspen Ltd — tribunal record

“It was nonetheless surprising that there was no contract between Parkgate and the Management Company. Similarly surprising was Mr Unsdorfer's approach to the question. He appeared to think it was inappropriate for there to be a written contract, because he controlled both companies. He also considered there was no oral contract, because it would amount to 'me talking to myself'.”

“In answer to questions put to him by the panel Mr Unsdorfer could not explain why no application was made in late 2016 for dispensation or why it had taken the Landlord nearly 8 years since the completion of the works to make the necessary application, despite being aware of the need for the same since December 2016. He could not explain why the landlord did not issue the dispensation application for nearly three and a half years after the previous determination of this tribunal.”

“the quality of evidence will inevitably deteriorate with the passage of time, and the timing of this application was something that was entirely within the control of the landlord.”

“In answer to questions put to him by the panel Mr Unsdorfer could not explain why no application was made in late 2016 for dispensation or why it had taken the Landlord nearly 8 years since the completion of the works to make the necessary application, despite being aware of the need for the same since December 2016. He could not explain why the landlord did not issue the dispensation application for nearly three and a half years after the previous determination of this tribunal.”

“the tribunal finds that the applicant failed through its managing agent to submit a potential or exploratory claim on behalf of the respondent and failed to make it clear to Mr Syed in a timely manner that it had not done so.”

“The tribunal also had concerns about the late charges for electricity. It accepts the Applicant's assurances that there were beyond its control and that they are looking for refunds of these from their brokers so that the leaseholders will be credited for all of those payments. As the current year is only estimated service charges the tribunal expects that the finalised accounts will reflect those credits.”

“The tribunal had some concerns about the levels of insurance, managing fees and the accountancy charges but it noted (i) The Respondent failed to provide any comparative evidence. (ii) The amounts demanded have been agreed by the freeholder company which comprises leaseholders who are liable for the charges alongside the Respondent.”