Urang Property Management (formerly) — tribunal record

“He accepted that the property had no lift and there was no significant disrepair and that there was very low management input.”

“the on-boarding process, which appears to have lasted from May 2022 until about June 2023, is wholly unjustifiably long. The Applicants were not charged with Urang's fees for that long, but they were charged for a full calendar year. It cannot be reasonable for leaseholders to be liable for managing agents fees for such a long on-boarding process, before any leaseholder-facing management tasks at all were performed, in the absence of very compelling reasons. Mr Roberts was unable to give us any reason for the length of the process in this case.”

“in respect of some items, the rationale for the charges only became clear with Mr Roberts' explanations, and in some of those, he accepted that the presentation of both the interim service charge demands and the outturn figures were confusingly presented.”

“The tribunal finds the applicant failed to notify the landlord of the respondents subletting of the property to Mr Baghdadi pursuant to the provisions of s. 98(4) of the 2002 Act and took it upon itself to refuse retrospective consent on 5 December 2022.”

“It appears that Urang wrongly thought that they could apply underspends to the reserve fund, but we had no evidence about what the relevant employees understood at the time as to whether a reserve fund could have been built up prospectively.”

“It would undoubtably have been preferable if a reserve fund had been available to allow the Applicant to build up funds to undertake the major works over more than one year.”

“The application of the caselaw by the Respondent is misguided.”

“On occasions penalty charges have been imposed when the account is clear.”