RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL SERVICE

LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL FOR THE

RENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

 

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 SS27A & 20C

 

 

                                                                                                            LON/00AL/LSC/2008/0249

 

 

 

Premises:                                102 Cossall Walk, Nunhead, London SE15 2TN

 

 

Applicant:                               Mr. Adeyinka Olufodun

 

Represented by:                    In person

 

 

Respondent:                           London Borough of Southwark

 

Represented by:                    Mr. Joseph, Home Ownership Unit

 

Also present:                          Mr. G Dudhia

                                                Ms. B Begum

 

 

Tribunal:                                 Ms. LM Tagliavini

                                                Mrs. E Flint DMS, FRICS, IRRV

                                                Mrs. S Wilby

 

Hearing Date:                        22nd September 2008

 

 

 

1.          This is an application by Mr. Olufodun the long lessee of premises situate at 102 Cossall         Walk, London SE15 pursuant to a lease dated 19th April 2004 for a term of 125 years at a ground rent of £10 per annum.  Mr. Olufodun seeks the Tribunal’s determination of his liability to pay service charges for 2006/07; 2007/08 and 2008/09.  Specifically, The Applicant asserts that he should not be liable to pay for repairs carried out at other flats in the block; that the insurance premium is too high; the care     and upkeep and grounds maintenance are        excessive and that he should be allowed to       disconnect from the communal heating service as the costs are too high. 

 

 

 

2.                  In a Statement of Case dated 24/07/08; Mr. Olufodun asserted that some of the services specified   in the work orders are those provided exclusively to the non-long leaseholder tenants in particular the cost of reglazing or replacement of UPC doors and windows and fixing of interior defects.         The Applicant also queried the charge for district heating, stating that the cost had risen greatly since he had become a leaseholder.  Mr. Olufodun also repeated his wish for the flat to be disconnected from the communal heating system so he could install his own central heating/hot water boiler.

 

 

3.                  Mr. Olufodun queried the cost of the buildings insurance and asserted that it was too high in comparison with a nearby block of flats and the quote he had received for £89.19 per year from Halifax.  Mr. Olufodun also queried the ground maintenance charges stating these should be covered by the ground rent charge and yearly contributions covered under the unitemised repairs. Mr. Olufodun took issue with the reasonableness of the service charges for upkeep and care (cleaning) stating that they were too high for the low level and inadequate work carried out.

 

 

4.                  In response, the Respondent asserted that the calculation of Mr. Olufodun’s share of service charges of 5/540, was arrived at by using a bed weighting system, whereby a property is assigned 4 units with an additional unit for each bedroom.  The windows and doors of each flat in this block are defined in the lease as forming part of the structure and therefore fall within the Respondent’s liability to repair.  No complaint had been received in respect of any items of disrepair form the Applicant in respect of Flat 102. It was said that the primary cause for the increase in heating costs was the higher charge for fuel.  Although clause 2(8) of the lease allows for a lessee to be disconnected from the district heating with the written consent of the Respondent.  However, it is against the Respondent’s policy to grant permission as the heating plant would have to be modified to efficiently match the lower demand.  Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, Flat 5 had not been disconnected from the central heating system.  The ground rent, not to be confused with the grounds maintenance, was fixed at £10 per annum. The grounds maintenance covered the maintenance of the communal flowerbeds and gardens.

 

 

 

5.                  In respect of the cleaning and upkeep of communal areas, it was asserted by the Respondent that this is based on the actual number of productive hours spent on cleaning the block 1-108 and the Cossall Estate to which was added the costs of materials, transport, administrative and supervisory costs. The Respondent denied that a reduced cleaning service had been provided.

 

 

6.                  In oral evidence, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he accepted he had a liability to pay service charges but did not think he should pay for itemised repairs concerning other flats not let to long leaseholders.  Mr. Olufodun referred the Tribunal to a number of items which he stated had nothing to do with his flat or for which he had not received the benefit of the works.   However, Mr. Olufodun was unable to demonstrate why, having regard to the terms of the lease, he was not liable for these costs. He told the Tribunal that the heating system did not work properly and that the heating was never turned off.  He accepted he had not lived in the flat for some three or four years but had received a letter from the tenant complaining about the heating system.  The Applicant also showed the Tribunal a gas bill in respect of 7 Robertson Street, a nearby two bedroom flat, on which Mr. Olufodun relied to show the disparity in costs between the two flats and the much lower gas bills for the comparable flat. 

 

 

7.                  Mr. Olufodun asserted that the area outside his flat was very messy and not cleaned properly.  He stated the cleaning costs were excessive and he only ever saw one cleaner although accepted that the communal areas on the estate were reasonable. 

 

 

8.                  Mr. Joseph, on behalf of the Respondent, referred to clauses 2(3)(a) (payment of service charges) and 2(7)(2) (permission for structural changes or additions in the lease).  Mr. Joseph told the tribunal that the Estate is made up a total of 540 properties and not just the 108 flats within the Applicant’s building.  He stated that the cost of fuel had risen sharply leading to increased heating charges, although he maintained that the district heating system is an efficient way to provide heating.  He stated that the central heating is run on a ‘on demand’ system and the costs Borough wide are added together before a percentage allocated to the Applicant’s service charge demand.  The grounds maintenance involved the maintenance of garden beds, trees and grass cutting.  A witness statement dated 8/8/08 from Mr. Nick Mellish a Southwark Cleaning Service Manager gave details of his responsibility for Estate cleaning, Street Cleaning and Grounds Maintenance across the borough.   Documentation in respect of the long-term contract for leaseholders’ buildings insurance dated 19/10/05 was also provided together with a copy of the insurance documentation.

 

 

9.                  The Tribunal inspected the subject building and its common parts and those of the Estate.  The Tribunal found much of the common parts of the Estate, other than the Applicant’s building, to be in a satisfactory condition, However, the common stairs and landing adjacent to the subject premises was noted to be dirty and littered with dog faeces and rubbish.

 

 

10.              In reaching its decision, the Tribunal took into account all the oral and documentary evidence as well as its findings on its own inspection.  The Tribunal determined:

 

 

Insurance 

 

11.              The Tribunal noted Mr. Olufodun’s assertions that he had been quoted a much cheaper price, but were not made aware on the basis on which that quote had been made.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent has sought to achieve competitive insurance, and finds that this charge is reasonable and payable by the Applicant for all the subject service charge years.

 

 

Grounds Maintenance

 

12.              The Tribunal noted that Mr. Olufodun appeared to be confusing his fixed ground rent sum with the grounds maintenance item of expenditure.   The Tribunal was satisfied that works to the common grounds of the subject block and the Estate were carried out.  However, the Tribunal noted that these amounted to some £16,000 per annum, which, in the Tribunal’s opinion is on the high side in view of the limited gardens and trees.  Therefore, the Tribunal finds that only 50% of the sums charged are reasonable for the years past, and for the service charge year 2008/09. 

 

 

 

 

Cleaning

 

13.              The Tribunal finds that cleaning is regularly undertaken to the block and the estate for which the Applicant is liable to contribute, although it appeared that this was undertaken more thoroughly in some parts of the Estate than other.  Further, the Tribunal noted from Mr. Mellish’s statement that there was an unnecessary excess of supervision of the cleaning, on all levels of management.  Therefore, the Tribunal determines that the cleaning costs should be reduced 25% and allows 75% as a reasonable cost for all the service charge years in question and for 2008/09.     

 

 

Unitemised Repairs

 

14.              The Tribunal finds that these items are properly chargeable to the Applicant as they fall within the terms of his lease and service charge liability.  The Tribunal does not agree with the Applicant’s analysis, that because they relate to other individual flats these charges are payable by those occupiers as this does not accurately reflect the obligations imposed by the lease.

 

 

Heating

 

15.              This item was not fully addressed by Respondent and no report or written statement was produced in respect of this item.  The Tribunal notes the very large number of visits to the boiler room, as set out in the Respondent’s documents. In the absence of any explanation to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that either the boiler was continually breaking down, thereby raising the questions as to whether it is fit for purpose and the costs of maintaining it are reasonable, or in the alternative that, at least some of the visits were unnecessary.  Therefore the Tribunal reduces the heating and associated charges by 30% for the relevant service charge periods, noting that 2008/09 is at present only an interim demand  and may be subject  to adjustment in any event.

 

16.              Although, Mr. Olufodun had stated his wish to be disconnected from the district heating system, he had not made any formal application for a variation of the terms of the lease and therefore the Tribunal is unable to consider this matter.

 

 

Section 20 Costs

 

17.              The Tribunal notes that the lease does not allow these costs to be added to the service charge account.  In any event, in view of the findings made, the Tribunal finds it fair and reasonable, in all the circumstances, not to allow the costs of this litigation before the LVT to be added to the service charge.

 

 

Chairman: LM Tagliavini

 

Dated: 6th December 2008