CAM/00MX/LSC/2025/0642 — service charge decision

“roughly a third of the year was likely to have been impacted by the various national restrictions, so it determined that a third of the cleaning costs for that year should not be considered relevant costs”

“None of the costs of bulk refuse collection, in any of the service charge years in dispute, are relevant costs for the purposes of calculating the Applicants' service charges.”

“the cost of bulk rubbish collection was estimated to be £26.59 per Applicant”

“the Respondent could not be sure that the invoice included at page 1592 of the hearing file related to repairs to common parts, rather than to a specific flat. On that basis, it generously accepted that the cost of £187.20 was not to be considered a relevant cost”

“the Tribunal accepts that a budgeted costs of £460 would have been reasonable, but no more.”

“the parties agreed that there is no CCTV at the Building. The Applicants were each erroneously charged £5.20 on that account”

“the Respondent has misplaced certain documents relating to service charge years preceding 2018/2019. It inexplicably created CCTV charges without good reason. It has operated an inconsistent apportionment regime over the years. It failed to use its negotiating power and the benefit of centralised nationwide agreements to achieve best value prices for services provided, including in relation to cleaning in 2020/2021. It has failed to properly manage the handling of bulk waste in Flats 15-26. None of these issues can be easily explained and all have contributed to a difficult relationship between the parties.”

“The Tribunal was a little uncomfortable with the Respondent choosing to adopt a flat-level apportionment in respect of insurance, whilst maintaining a building-wide apportionment for other costs despite the issues raised by the Applicants in that regard, but it was satisfied there was an objective justification for the change such that it was not unfair or unreasonable.”

“the Tribunal found it distinctly unfair of the Respondent to consider that the Applicants should contribute to these specific costs. They are a foreseeable result of the Respondent's decision to operate different tenures across the Building. It has clearly not sought to introduce, recognise or enforce the Lease obligations or its own regulations in respect of waste disposal. The responsibility for that lies only with itself and not with the Applicants.”

“It appears that the Respondent ultimately paid a premium for arranging contracts at a national level with Cleanscapes Limited; the Tribunal would have expected it to have obtained concessions in exchange, even if cleaning arrangements were 'bolstered' at the times such cleaning did take place. It is hardly a significant concession for the contractor to agree not to pay for services it did not provide, especially in circumstances where the Government spent significant financial resources in supporting businesses facing difficulties due to the restrictions it put in place.”