|
|
Leasehold Valuation Tribunal LON/00AN/LIS/2008/0023
(transferred from
Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sections 27A and 20C
Address: 70 Talgarth Mansions,
Applicant/ Claimant: Daejan Properties Limited
(freeholder)
Represented by: Mr Petts,
counsel
Respondents/
Defendants: Mr A F Manso (lessee Flat 70); Mr K Walker (lessee Flat
73) & Talgarth Mansions Residents’ Association;
Represented by: Mr Swabey, solicitor, Swabey &
Co
Tribunal members: Mr T J Powell LLB
Mr
T Sennett FCIEH
Mr
L Packer
Date of
Transfer from
the County Court: 14 May 2008
Hearing:
Decision:
Decisions
of the Tribunal
(1)
The Tribunal determines that the whole interim
demand of £2,143.23 claimed in county court proceedings 7WL02452 is reasonable
and payable by the Respondent;
(2)
The Tribunal determines that the whole interim
demand of £2,700.00 claimed in county court proceedings 7WL04209 is also reasonable
and payable by the Respondent;
(3)
Of the total estimated cost of £519,910.17 for
major works, fees and VAT, the Tribunal determines that £498,936.93 is a
reasonable interim charge payable by the leaseholders in the respective
proportions of their leases. This
decision is effective for Mr Manso, Mr Walker and all leaseholders who are
members of the Talgarth Mansions Residents’ Association;
(4)
The Respondent is ordered to refund the £150
Tribunal hearing fee paid by the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this
decision;
(5)
An order is made under section 20C of the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1985;
(6)
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over county court
costs and fees;
(7)
This matter should now be returned to the West
London County Court.
Background
facts
1.
This was an application pursuant to section 27A of
the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as to the reasonableness and payability of an
interim service charge in respect of proposed major works. The matter began life as two sets of proceedings
under Claim Nos: 7WL02452 and 7WL04209 issued by the Applicant Daejan
Properties Limited against the Respondent Mr A F Manso, for the sums of £2,143.23
and £2,700.00 respectively, plus interest and costs. Mr Manso filed defences to those claims which
were consolidated and transferred to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal by order
of District Judge Ryan on
2.
By the time the Tribunal hearing took place, the
sum of £2,143.23 in the first action remained in dispute. However, of the £2,700 principal claimed in
the second action, only £2,150.00 remained in dispute, which sum related to the
advance charge in respect of major works.
3.
Also by the time the Tribunal hearing took place,
Daejan Properties had raised two further advance charges for the reserve fund
in respect of proposed major works, so that Mr Manso’s total liability for the
major works reserve fund was £11,631. Mr
Manso had withheld payment in respect of all of these advance charges for major
works.
4.
By a direction dated 17 September 2008 the Tribunal
gave the Talgarth Mansions Residents’ Association and any other lessees not
represented by the residents’ association, permission to join in the
application. A request to join the
proceedings was received from Mr Karl Walker of Flat 73 and from the Talgarth
Mansions Residents’ Association, represented by Mr Christopher Yu, a committee
member.
5.
All parties agreed that the Leasehold Tribunal
should decide not only the reasonableness and payability of the two interim
charges forming part of the consolidated actions transferred by West London
County Court, but also of the totality of the interim charges for all of the
proposed major works.
The
issues
6.
The interim charges in respect of proposed major
works were based upon a specification of works drawn up by Cook Associates on
the strength of a two or three page condition survey prepared by the
Applicant’s surveyor, Mr Paul Chappel.
Although the specification of works appeared in the Tribunal’s trial
bundle, Mr Chappel’s short condition survey was not disclosed to the Tribunal
and had not at any stage been disclosed to the Respondents.
7.
The issues were:
(i)
The
Respondents alleged that the consultation procedure under section 20 of the
1985 Act was incomplete and therefore invalid, because Daejan Properties had
not given proper reasons for intending to carry out the major works; and
(ii)
The
Respondents alleged that the amount of the advance service charges was
unreasonable, because the specification of works prepared by Cook Associates
was too extensive, and more than the Respondents considered was justified by
the condition of the building and by the apparently very brief condition survey,
which Mr Chappel prepared.
The Lease
8.
There was no dispute that the landlord was under an
obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the block and the common parts
in good repair, nor that the landlord had an obligation to decorate the
exterior of the common parts, including the outside doors and door frames, as
often as in its opinion was reasonably necessary. There is therefore no need to recite the lease
provisions in this Decision. There was
an issue as to whether the landlord might in the future seek to recharge
certain window works to individual leaseholders, but that is not relevant to
this determination.
The Law
9.
Service charges and relevant costs are defined in
Section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended). The amount of service charges which can be
claimed against leaseholders is limited by a test of reasonableness, which is
set out in Section 19 of the Act. Under
Section 27A an application may be made to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for a
determination whether a service charge is payable, including an advance service
charge.
10.
The consultation requirements for major works are
contained within the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements)(
11.
The “Stage 2” procedure is contained within
paragraph 11. By paragraph 11(10) “The
landlord shall, by notice in writing to each tenant and the association (if
any) (a) specify the place and hours at which estimates may be inspected …”
Inspection
12.
The Tribunal members carried out an inspection of
the property on the first day of the hearing,
13.
Talgarth Mansions is a substantial Edwardian
mansion block on a narrow and confined site between the busy Talgarth Road (A4)
to the front and London Underground railway lines to the rear. There are 48 flats (of which apparently 21
were owned by Daejan Properties) and 5 front entrances.
14.
The façade is part-rendered. The rear and side elevation were largely of
brickwork. Windows are in the main
original wood sashes, although some had been replaced.
15.
To the rear, the Tribunal saw open drops to
basement areas and extensive cracking to the communal concrete paving.
The
hearing
16.
The hearing commenced on
17.
The Tribunal was provided with a combined Scott
Schedule dated 1 July 2008, which identified the items in dispute and which
contained both the lessees’ complaints and the landlord’s responses.
Section
20 consultation
18.
The Respondents disputed the section 20
consultation on the basis that the “Stage 1” notice of intention letter dated
19.
The landlord’s evidence was that the “recent
survey” was a document of two or three pages prepared by Mr Chappel following
his inspection of the building. As
mentioned above, that condition survey was not disclosed to the lessees, nor
was it available to the Tribunal.
20.
The lessees’ main complaint was that Mr Chappel’s condition
survey was insufficiently detailed to justify the very full specification of
works which Cook Associates later prepared and upon which various contractors
were invited to tender. More
specifically, the lessees complained that if a window survey had been carried
out, the lessees would have been better able to comment on the specification of
works which followed.
21.
To an extent, Mr Chappel for Daejan Properties
accepted this criticism. He said in
paragraph 3 of his statement “the specification I have prepared is following a
basic inspection without high level access equipment, and is based on the current
state and condition of the building and what is required to bring the building
up to the standard it should be in compliance with the landlord’s obligations
under the Lease. The last works were
completed almost a decade ago, so it is not surprising that some of those items
need to be renewed or repaired”.
22.
He continued in paragraph 4: “As a result of the
limitations of my initial inspection in terms of access to all areas, I have
included a number of necessarily provisional items, which will be assessed once
the scaffolding has been erected. It may
be that some of the provisional work is not required (whether in part or
completely), in which case the contract sum will be reduced to reflect this.”
23.
The Applicants’ case was that Mr Chappel had done
the best job that he could from the ground and that he had used his best
knowledge and experience to prepare the specification of works, and he
confirmed this approach in his oral evidence.
24.
Mr Laurence Pitts, the surveyor acting on behalf of
the Respondents, criticised some aspects of Mr Chappel’s approach, in
particular the lack of a windows survey, but in general he endorsed Mr Chappel’s
approach. He had also carried out a
ground level survey of the building in order to reach the conclusions set out
in his expert’s report.
25.
Mr Swabey, on behalf of the Respondents, laid great
emphasis as to the landlord’s lack of consultation with lessees, in its
broadest sense, but with regard to the statutory consultation requirements he
could only point to the fact that the lessees were not given Mr Chappel’s condition
survey, that the freeholder had not carried out a separate window survey and
that the reasons in the “Stage 1” notice of intention letter were
inadequate.
26.
With regard to the “Stage 1” letter, there had been
a response from the Talgarth Mansions Residents’ Association, albeit out of
time. In its letter of
27.
With regard to the proposed works on the windows
and doors, the residents’ association letter stated:
·
“Overhaul
windows and doors: In a letter dated
30 May, which was written to Karl Walker (ref: EC/MB), Edward Corrigan stated
that only communal areas would be overhauled.
However, in a subsequent letter to Kate West he stated that they were
responsible for all windows and doors.
Further clarification is needed on this subject. In previous years, Freshwater [the property
group of which Daejan Properties Limited forms part] replaced windows in
communal areas and then consulted individual leaseholders if their windows
needed replacing. Can you confirm that
this will be done during the proposed wave of works?
·
Replace
windows and doors which are beyond repair: as above.
·
Refurbish
all main entrance doors: In
principal this is agreed, however, the work should be refurbishment of the existing doors in the original
style. Not replacement of the
doors. Redecoration should be in keeping
with the overall style of the building.
Refurbishment should include looking at the security of the doors and
their locks.”
28.
The letter went on to state that the residents’
association would like another contractor, Mitre Construction Company Limited
(“Mitre”), to be considered for the proposed works on the basis that this was
the company which had completed the works during the last wave “and we felt
they provided an excellent service.”
29.
The letter concluded with these words: “The
Residents’ Association is keen for these works to be completed to the highest
possible standards and in keeping with the style of the building.”
30.
Even though the residents’ association was strictly
out of time to propose Mitre Construction as an alternative contractor, the
landlord did seek a quote from that company and, as will be seen, eventually
appointed Mitre as the lowest bidder to carry out the works.
31.
The landlord’s “Second Stage” consultation letter
was dated
32.
The letter responded to the residents’ association’s
observations by stating: “In response to your enquiries, I can confirm that
replacement of windows and doors will be to the common parts only, but as the
landlord is responsible for redecoration of the flat windows and if these are
beyond reasonable repair, then it will be necessary to include replacement
within the scheme and possibly charge back the cost of replacement to the
individual leaseholders, this is yet to be clarified.”
33.
The letter went on to say “The original tenders may
be inspected at the address stated above [i.e.
34.
The evidence was that none of the lessees asked to
see the original tenders and although also invited to make written
observations, no such observations were made.
35.
As a result of the above, Daejan Properties argued
that it had followed the statutory consultation procedures in the 2003
Regulations and had complied with them in every respect.
The
Tribunal’s Decision
36.
Both parties accepted that the landlord has an
obligation under the lease to carry out repairs and to maintain and decorate
the exterior and common parts. Seven
years had passed since the last cycle of major works in August 2000. The landlord decided to act now to comply
with its obligations under the lease and had appointed an experienced
professional, Mr Chappel, to carry out a ground level survey of the
building. That was the express reason
given to the lessees in the “Stage 1” letter.
That letter had set out in detail the nature of the proposed works in 12
separate bullet point headings. At the
time, the residents’ association accepted that the work was necessary and did
not raise any question about Mr Chappel’s condition survey, upon which the
landlord’s proposal was based.
37.
Mr Chappel accepted that there were limitations to
his ground level survey and he acknowledged that a number of items which
subsequently appeared in the schedule of works were necessarily provisional.
38.
The Tribunal is mindful that in this matter it is
only adjudicating on estimated charges for major works. The Tribunal is satisfied that proper reasons
were given by the landlord in its “Stage 1” notice of intention letter. The Tribunal therefore determines that the
landlord has complied with the statutory consultation requirements and that therefore
there is no breach.
Items in
dispute
39.
At the hearing, the Tribunal was taken through the
combined Scott Schedule by the parties.
Generally, each item was dealt with by the parties in order and the
Tribunal heard evidence from both parties item by item. The Tribunal’s determinations therefore
follow the same structure as the evidence given. The Tribunal’s determinations are summarised
in the Schedule, which is annexed to this decision.
40.
All
of the landlord’s estimated charges for the proposed major works were taken
from the tender figures provided by Mitre.
Whatever Mitre had estimated, the landlord sought to charge the lessees
by way of an advance service charge to the reserve fund for major works.
1.1 Brickwork/render
41.
The landlord contended for a provisional sum, and
therefore an advance charge of £11,600.
The lessees contended that a reasonable advance charge would be £10,750.
42.
The lessees disputed a number of items in the specification
of works. For example, they disputed the
need for hammer testing, the cost for repointing and the necessity for general
brickwork repairs. It became clear
during evidence that the lessees were working on an incorrect assumption that
all the brickwork had been repointed 4½ years ago.
43.
The landlord’s position was that the specification
of works contained provisional areas to be worked upon and provisional
costings, all of which were subject to close examination when scaffolding was
erected. For example, until there was
scaffolding the landlord indicated that it was uncertain to what extent the
brickwork around lessees’ boiler flues would need to be repaired.
44.
The difference between the parties was minimal in
the context of the overall cost of works.
The Tribunal accepts that the landlord’s figures were provisional. Given that it is adjudicating on an estimated
service charge, the Tribunal sees no basis to prefer the fine grained reduction
of only £850 proposed by the lessees.
Therefore the Tribunal determines that the figure of £11,600 is
reasonable as an estimated charge for this item.
1.2 Stone/concrete cills
45.
The lessees accepted the landlord’s £4,000
estimated charge.
2.1 External joinery (i.e. repairs to the
wooden windows) and
4.0 External redecoration (i.e. all external
surfaces and metalwork, including the woodwork of the windows)
46.
Following the tender by Mitre, the landlord made
provision for £54,920 for the estimated costs of the external joinery repairs
to the windows, plus £64,970 for the estimated cost for the external
redecoration (including the windows).
The lessees contended that £64,970 should have been sufficient for both
the repairs to the windows and the redecoration of the windows and other
exterior surfaces and metalwork.
However, in addition the Respondents’ surveyor Mr Petts allowed an extra
£7,000 to cover the estimated cost of those windows which would require more
extensive repair works than foreseen by the specification.
47.
In total, for items 2.1 and 4.0 the landlord sought
to collect an estimated charge of £119,890 and the lessees sought to limit the
estimated charge to £71,970, the difference between their positions being
£47,920.
48.
As indicated above, the landlord’s figures arose from
the tender by Mitre. For the landlord,
Mr Petts of counsel emphasised that this was a competitive tender and that
overall Mitre’s total estimate was the lowest of four contractors. The landlord’s position was that it was not
appropriate for the lessees to cherry pick between headings in the specification
or the tender, because inevitably companies would quote different amounts for
different headings. The landlord
justified the separation of items 2.1 and 4.0, because it provided a guide to
contractors as to the work that was likely to be needed and then to the
surveyor as to the analysis of tenders, and eventually to the supervision of
works.
49.
The Tribunal was invited to compare the figures
tendered by Mitre with those of Lambourn Contracts, the next cheapest estimate:
|
Item |
Mitre |
Lambourn |
|
2.1 |
£54,920 |
£68,066 |
|
4.0 |
£64,970 |
£47,501 |
|
|
£119,890 |
£115,567 |
The difference between the two tenders was £4,323.
50.
The lessees’ position was that, regardless of the
amounts quoted in the tender documents, the specification of works was too
detailed and that produced a result that the costs provided for by the
contractors were too high.
51.
The Respondents’ surveyor Mr Pitts said that he had
carried out an assessment of the building from ground level, using
binoculars. In his view the condition of
the windows was not that bad. In order
to assess the likely cost for making good and decorating the sash windows, he
relied upon the average costs contained in the Building Cost Information
Service (“BCIS”) buildings guideline costs.
That document suggested £175 per item, including infilling, minor and
large repairs and decorations. Mr Pitts
calculated that there were 370 items (windows and doors) which required
attention, which would give an estimated cost of nearly £65,000. He said that without the window survey there
was no evidence to justify a larger estimate to the cost of this work. Of the £175 per unit he said that half should
be allocated to the cost of overhauling the windows and minor repairs, and half
towards redecoration.
52.
Mr Pitts would not accept any of the landlord’s
proposed £54,920 for item 2.1, because, he said, the cost of external joinery
was included in the £65,970 that he had allowed for both items 2.1 (repairs)
and item 4.0 (redecoration). As
indicated above, he did add an additional £7,000 for more significant window
repairs, but he considered that all of the other external redecoration work for
painted surfaces, metalwork, galvanised metal and rendered surfaces, were
minimal or not necessary and should therefore be covered by the £71,970 that he
had estimated.
53.
The Applicant’s surveyor Mr Chappel strongly
disputed the approach taken by Mr Pitts.
He pointed out that the
The
Tribunal’s Decision
54.
The Tribunal had inspected the windows, also from
ground level. In addition, an
opportunity was taken to inspect the windows from the inside from one of the
common parts stairwells. Looking at the
condition of those windows and with the knowledge that fairly extensive repairs
were carried out to them eight or nine years ago, the Tribunal did not consider
that the evidence produced by the landlord justified the extent of likely
repairs for which the tenders had been invited.
55.
Considering the reasonableness of the advance
charge for these items, the Tribunal takes into account its view of the work
likely to be involved. On the face if
it, it does not appear to the Tribunal that such extensive work will be
necessary, but the Tribunal does accept that until the scaffolding goes up, it
will not be possible to ascertain the actual extent of necessary works. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the
tender figure in item 2.5 is on the high side and a lower figure would be more
appropriate. However, the Tribunal
disagrees with the Respondent’s assertion that the £71,970 would be sufficient
to cover the extensive painting of the soffits, facias, rainwater goods, metal
pipes, railings and rendering.
56.
Assuming there to be 390 windows in the property
and assuming that half the BCIS guideline figure of £175 would be allocated to
repairs (i.e. £87.50 per window) the Tribunal would allow £34,125, rounded up
to £35,000 for item 2.1.
57.
A similar, if slightly lower figure should be
allocated to item 4.0 for the external redecoration of the woodwork and a
further £30,000 is considered reasonable for the other painted surfaces. Therefore, in relation to item 4.0 (external
redecoration) the Tribunal confirms the landlord’s estimate of £64,970 as a
reasonable advance charge for this proposed work.
2.2 Doors and Frames
58.
The specification of works allowed for the
overhauling of all front doors and the removal of the ironmongery to the front
entrance doors and replacements. In
addition, this item allowed for the removal of the existing door and frame to
the right hand side of the front elevation and the fixing of a new door. The estimated cost of this work was
£7,400. The lessees’ position was that
the front doors require redecoration, not refurbishment and the ironmongery was
in reasonable condition and only needed to be repainted.
59.
The Respondents’ surveyor Mr Pitts had thought at
first that the three rear doors to the vault areas had been included in the
2000 works, but when his attention was drawn to the relevant paragraph of the
2000 tender document, he accepted that that work had not been done in
2000. However, his impression upon
inspecting the building was that the front doors only needed decorating, that
is they should be rubbed down and repainted, and that this cost should fall
within the decorations provision of item 4.0 referred to above.
60.
When the Tribunal inspected the building it
considered that some redecoration of the doors was necessary. At the rear, the Tribunal noted that one or
two of the doors were rotten. The residents’
association had accepted in its letter of
61.
In the light of this the Tribunal did not consider
that the landlord’s proposal to replace the assorted recent ironmongery was
unreasonable. The Tribunal did not
consider the tender estimates for this item were exceptional and therefore determined
that the estimate of £7,400 was payable.
2.3 Soffits and Facias
62.
The landlord sought to charge £3,600 for the
proposed work of removing a provisional length of 40 linear metres of soffit
boarding and a similar length of facia boarding to the front of the
building. The lessees were unwilling to
pay any of this estimated charge. Mr Pitts
said that the gutters and rainwater items were all renewed in 2000. If the soffits and facias needed doing in
2000, he questioned why they were not done then. He complained that this proposed work would
require taking off the new gutters and rainwater goods.
63.
Mr Chappel said that it was not easy to see the
condition of the soffits and facias from ground level, even through
binoculars. Until they are scraped and
checked when the scaffolding is in place, it will not be known how much work
might be required. Since soffits and
facias could deteriorate over an eight year period, he had made a provisional
allowance to renew limited meterage of some of the facias. 40 metres each represented one-sixth of the
total 240 linear metres at the front of the building.
64.
The Tribunal considers that it is prudent to make
provision for work to the soffits and facias and determines that £3,600 is
reasonable and payable as an estimated charge.
3.0 Rainwater goods/SVP’s/waste pipe work
65.
The landlord had made allowance to remove the
provisional length of 25 linear metres of 725 mm diameter cast iron pipe work
and 25 linear metres of 100 mm diameter cast iron pipe work, together with associated
plumbing work and fixing new galvanised wire cages to all SVP tops. The provisional estimate for this work was
£5,075. However, the lessees contended
that £1,000 would be a sufficient estimate for this work. This was on the assumption that two or three
down pipes might need to be replaced in plastic. Mr Chappel pointed out that there were some
69 lengths of vertical piping, totalling nearly 900 metres, most of which were
in cast iron. Some of this would need
renewing, also in cast iron, which was an expensive process. He claimed that the £1,000 allowed by the lessees
would only cover the cost of replacing one such down pipe.
66.
The Tribunal, upon its inspection, had seen that
the guttering was in plastic, but the soil down pipes were generally in cast
iron, as were many waste water pipes.
The Tribunal had also seen a number of examples of poor joints and it
noted that the residents’ association in its letter of
4.0 External decoration
67.
This has been dealt with above, but in summary the
Tribunal allows £64,970 as an estimated charge, of which about half is
accounted for by decoration of the windows and the other half for the other
surfaces and metalwork under this item.
5.1 Paving to the rear of the blocks
68.
The tender estimate for this work was £52,500 and
the lessees contended that a reasonable estimate would be £31,500. Mr Chappel said that the approximate area of
the paving was 390 sqm. and Mr Pitts suggested it was 360 sqm. It was agreed between the parties that the
approximate area to be covered was about 360 sqm. It was also agreed that the cracked existing
concrete paving needed to be broken up and removed and the whole area
resurfaced.
69.
Mr Pitts relied upon the
70.
Mr Chappel said that the
71.
By comparison, Lambourn Contracts had quoted just
under £90,000 for this item. While the lessees
wanted concrete replaced with concrete, in the landlord’s view tarmac was more
appropriate, but it required a lot of small edging strips. However, both experts agreed that tarmac and
concrete coverings would cost much the same.
72.
Having visited the site, the Tribunal accepts Mr Chappel’s
arguments that this is a restricted access site and the job would present
difficulties. The Tribunal therefore
determined that the provisional sum of £52,500 was a reasonable estimate charge
and payable.
5.2/3 Steps and railings
73.
The lessees accepted the cost of repairs to
concrete steps. They also accepted in
principle the need to install metal guard rails to the basement voids and fix
new mesh panels. However, the lessees
considered that 8 such panels were necessary at £500 each and offered £4,000
for this particular item, rather than the £12,220 proposed by the landlord. It transpired that there had been some
confusion as to what was entailed in the specification. Mr Chappel clarified that the landlord
intended to install 26 panels on 14 sets of stairs (which at £500 each would
total £13,000), not 8 panels.
74.
The Tribunal agreed that it was necessary to
protect people from falling off the steps and into the basement voids. It therefore determines that the total estimated
charge of £14,170 for this item was reasonable and payable.
6.0 General
75.
The lessees accepted the £189,924 cost of
scaffolding preliminaries, general contingency and other items.
7.0 Fees
76.
The lessees accepted the proposed percentage rates
that would be used to calculate the fees on the total contract sum.
Summary
77.
As will be seen from the annexed Schedule, as
against the grand total proposed estimated cost of works of £519,910.17, the
Tribunal determines that some £498,936.93 is reasonable as an advance charge
and payable.
78.
Given that the residents’ association was joined
into the Tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal confirms that all leaseholders who
are members of the residents’ association, together with Mr Manso and Mr Walker
(if they are not also members of the association) benefit from this
determination.
79.
In the case of Mr Manso, his share of the approved
estimated cost of works (being the “Service Proportion” of 2.15% in the Lease)
is £10,727.14, as opposed to the total advance charges for the major works
reserve fund in the statement of account dated
80.
In his summing up on behalf of the Respondents, Mr
Swabey suggested that the Tribunal had two options. The first was to say that the interim service
charge was unreasonable and the statutory procedure should be carried out
again. For the reasons given above, this
option is not appropriate. His second option
was to set an interim service charge at a figure that the Tribunal considers
reasonable for the works proposed and that is what the Tribunal has done. Mr Swabey went on to say that he would ask
the Tribunal to recommend that the landlord set up a meeting within 21 days, to
take into account the leaseholders’ wishes in relation to the proposed works
and to carry out a window survey of the building, including the landlord’s
flats.
81.
The best that the Tribunal can do is to urge the
parties to open proper lines of communication, so as to ensure that the
eventual works are carried out smoothly, to everyone’s satisfaction and to
minimise opportunities for disagreement or dissatisfaction.
82.
It should be emphasised by the Tribunal that
nothing in this Decision affects the leaseholders’ rights to challenge the
reasonableness and payability of the final costs incurred, nor the standard of
work carried out.
Costs
before the Tribunal and refund of Tribunal fees
83.
On behalf of Daejan Properties, Mr Petts of counsel
accepted that there was no provision in the lease to permit the landlord to
recover its costs before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal as a service
charge. He said that the landlord would
not object to the making of an order under section 20C of the 1985 Act. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt the
Tribunal makes an order under section 20C preventing the landlord from
recovering its costs of the Tribunal proceedings through the service charge.
84.
Mr Petts confirmed that the landlord had paid £150
as a Tribunal hearing fee and the landlord sought a refund of that fee from Mr
Manso.
85.
Regulation 9 of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals
(Procedure) (
86.
The Tribunal noted that the landlord had raised
four advance charges for the major works reserve fund for the periods between
87.
This Tribunal therefore determines that Mr Manso
should refund Daejan Properties Limited the sum of £150 within 28 days of this Decision.
The next
steps
88.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over county court
costs and fees.
89.
This matter should now be returned to the West
London County Court.
|
Chairman: |
|
|
|
Timothy Powell |
|
Date: |
|
Annex: Schedule of
Estimated Costs determined by the Tribunal as reasonable and payable in respect
of proposed major works.
LON/00AN/LIS/2008/0023
Annex to Decision
Talgarth Mansions
Schedule of estimated
costs determined by the Tribunal as reasonable and
payable in respect of
proposed major works.
|
Spec No. |
ITEM |
Tender £ |
Lessees’ amount £ |
LVT determination
£ |
Consideration |
|
1.0 |
Ext
walls/structures |
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
Brickwork/render |
|
|
|
|
|
1.1.1/2 |
Hammer
test render/ rendering |
5000 |
|
|
|
|
1.1.3 |
Pc sum
repointing |
3750 |
|
|
|
|
1.1.4 |
Pc
replace spalled bricks |
1350 |
|
|
|
|
1.1.5 |
General
brickwork repairs |
1500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sub
total 1a |
11,600 |
10,750 |
11,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2 |
Stone/
concrete cills |
|
|
|
|
|
1.2.1 |
Pc sum
for repairs |
4000 |
4000 |
|
T agrees
reasonable |
|
|
Sub
total 1b |
4,000 |
4,000 |
4,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.0 |
Ext
joinery |
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
Windows |
|
|
|
|
|
2.1.1 |
(i) Pc
sum 12 box sashes |
15000 |
|
|
|
|
|
(ii) ease
adjust sashes |
5740 |
|
|
|
|
|
(iii) pc
replace sash cords |
3000 |
|
|
|
|
|
(iv) pc
replace sash weights |
800 |
|
|
|
|
|
(v) pc
putty |
3000 |
|
|
|
|
|
(vi) pc
lower sashes |
9750 |
|
|
|
|
|
(vii)
a]window repair system |
7200 |
|
|
|
|
|
b] pc renew cills |
6420 |
|
|
|
|
2.1.2 |
Pc sum
additional joinery repairs |
4000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sub
total 2a |
54,920 |
Incl
in 4.0 |
35,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2 |
Doors
& Frames |
|
|
|
|
|
2.2.1/2 |
Overhaul
doors & frames |
3000 |
|
|
|
|
2.2.3 |
New
ironmongery to front doors |
3900 |
|
|
|
|
2.2.4 |
Door
& frame to right side alley |
500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sub
total 2b |
7,400 |
|
7,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3 |
Soffits
& Fascias |
|
|
|
|
|
2.3.1 |
Pc soffit
boarding |
2000 |
|
|
|
|
2.3.2 |
Pc fascia
boarding |
1600 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sub
total |
3,600 |
|
3,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0 |
Rainwater
etc goods |
|
|
|
|
|
3.1.1 |
Replace
CI pipework |
2675 |
|
|
|
|
3.1.4 |
Pc
additional plumbing repairs |
1500 |
|
|
|
|
3.1.6 |
SVP terminals |
800 |
|
|
|
|
3.1.7 |
Gullies
& surrounds |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
5,075 |
1,000 |
5,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.0 |
External
redecoration |
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.1 |
Painted
surfaces |
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.2 |
Metalwork |
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.3 |
Galvanised
metal |
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.4 |
Woodwork |
|
|
|
|
|
4.1.6 |
Rendered
surfaces |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal |
64,970 |
71,970 |
64,970 |
T sum
incl making good & 2.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.0 |
External
Works |
|
|
|
|
|
5.1.1-4 |
Rear
paving |
51000 |
30000 |
|
|
|
5.1.5 |
Make good
garden areas |
1500 |
1500 |
|
Not in
dispute |
|
|
Subtotal
5a |
52,500 |
31,500 |
52,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.2/3 |
Steps
& railings |
|
|
|
|
|
5.2.1/2 |
Repair
concrete steps |
750 |
750 |
|
T agrees |
|
5.3.1 |
Repair
steps |
1200 |
1200 |
|
T agrees |
|
5.3.2/3 |
Metal
guard rails/ handrail |
12220 |
4000 |
|
T £500
per section |
|
|
Subtotal
5b |
14,170 |
|
14,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.0 |
General
|
|
|
|
Not
disputed |
|
6.1.1/6 |
Scaffold |
110000 |
110000 |
|
|
|
6.1.7 |
London
Underground costs |
15000 |
15000 |
|
|
|
6.2 |
CDM |
2000 |
2000 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
Prelims |
47925 |
47925 |
|
|
|
6.5 |
General
contingency |
15000 |
15000 |
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
6 |
189,925 |
189,925 |
189,925 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.0 |
Fees
(% of contract sum) |
|
|
|
Not
disputed |
|
7.1 |
Cook
Associates @ 7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cook
Associates CDM @ 0.75% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Freshwater
admin @ 4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of
major works |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
1a |
11600 |
|
11,600 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
1b |
4000 |
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
2a |
54920 |
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
2b |
7400 |
|
7,400 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
2c |
3600 |
|
3,600 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
3 |
5075 |
|
5,075 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
4 |
64970 |
|
64,970 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
5a |
52500 |
|
52,500 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
5b |
14170 |
|
14,170 |
|
|
|
Subtotal
6 |
189925 |
189925 |
189,925 |
|
|
|
Cost
of major works (ex fees) |
404560 |
|
388,240 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cook
associates@ 7.75% |
31353.40 |
|
30,088.60 |
|
|
|
Freshwater
@ 4% |
16182.40 |
|
15,529.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
cost incl fees |
452095.80 |
|
433,858.20 |
|
|
|
Vat @
15% |
67814.37 |
|
65,078.73 |
|
|
|
Grand
total |
519910.17 |
|
498,936.93 |
|