• FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : MAN/00CA/LAC/2018/0015 Property : Various Properties at Lydiate, Merseyside Applicant : Mr A McGlinchey and 24 others Respondents : One Vision Housing Association Type of : Reasonableness of Service Charges Application Section 27A and Section 20C Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Tribunal Members : Mr J R Rimmer Mrs S Hopkins Date : 19th July 2019 Order : (1) The service charge costs that are the subject matter of this application are reasonably incurred at reasonable cost (2) An order in favour of the Applicants is made under section 20C Landlord and tenant Act 1985 1 A Background 1 The Applicants are the owners of a number of leasehold properties situated upon a large development in Lydiate, Merseyside. 2Those properties were constructed in the early 1950s by the local authority for the area at that time, West Lancashire Rural District Council. At the time of local government reorganisation in 1973 they passed to Sefton Metropolitan District (now Borough) Council as part of its housing stock. In turn that authority has turned the responsibility for that stock to One Vision Housing Association. 3 A large number of tenants have exercised the “right to buy” their homes from their landlord and included in the housing stock on this development are 13 blocks comprising four flats, set amongst a much larger number of semi- detached and terraced houses. These could be acquired under long leaseholds under the “right to buy” legislation. 4 Within the 13 blocks there are 27 such flats that have been purchased. Some are held by the original occupiers, some are held by their assignees. Depending upon when they were purchased, some of the leases were granted by the local authority, some by Respondent. 5 By reason of the properties now approaching 60 years in age the Respondent has determined to embark upon a comprehensive programme of works, to include provision for new roofs to all the properties on the development. These constitute major works with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Respondent embarked upon the consultation process for such works that is a requirement of Section 20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, whilst at the same time including its own assured rented properties within the programme. 6 The Applicants have now sought to bring the matter before the Tribunal as they have, in some cases collectively and in others individually, a number of concerns as to the cost and quality of the work concerned, together with the manner in which the Respondent has set about its task. 7 The Tribunal does feel the need to express its view that with the benefit of hindsight, which is always a wonderful talent, a number of these issues might, conceivably, have been resolved in a different way, had the Respondent had more open lines of communication with its leaseholders. 8 In looking back, it may also be the case that many leaseholders may not have appreciated the significant complexity of the lease into which they entered, so 2 far as they related to the separate obligations of landlord and tenant for the maintenance and repair of their homes, in which they had placed significant investment of both time in maintaining their property to a good standard and condition 9 Having nevertheless reached a position where an application was made to the Tribunal, directions were given in November 2018 that have been complied with to the extent that a hearing could now take place. The Tribunal is grateful to the Applicants, who have been unrepresented up to the date of the hearing for the significant efforts they have put in to provide a coherent case and to the Respondent and its representatives for collating and producing clear bundles (3) of documents for its assistance. The Law 10 The law relating to jurisdiction in relation to service charges, falling within Section 18 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, (“the Act”) is found in Section 19 of the Act which provides: (1) relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period- (a) only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and (b) where the are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard 11 Further section 27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides: (1) An application may be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination whether a service charge is payable and, if it is, as to – (a) the person by whom it is payable (b) the person to whom it is payable (c) the amount which is payable (d) the date at or by which it is payable, and (e) the manner in which it is payable and the application may cover the costs incurred in providing the services etc and may be made irrespective of whether or not the Applicant has yet made any full or partial payment for those services (subsections 2 and 3) Subsection 4 provides for certain situations in which an application may not be made but none of them apply to the situation in this case. 12 Reference will also be made below to Section 20 of the Act, but in view of the nature of the issue in relation thereto its provisions, and the Regulations 3 relating to the consultation process for major works, are not set out here at length. B Preliminary issues 13 A number of matters were raised by the respondent as preliminary issues for the Tribunal to determine, largely without objection by the Applicants: (1) In the list of Applicants are the names of the leaseholders of 124, Grosvenor Road, Maghull and 19, Bridge Road, Maghull. Neither of these properties are within the development at Lydiate and are not affected by the proposed works. They are therefore removed from the proceedings. (2) Although named as a party, Mr Anthony McGlinchey is not the leaseholder of 43A, Liverpool Road. The assignee of the lease is Mrs Carolyn McGlinchey, who should be substituted as a party (3) In respect of 39A, Liverpool Road, the named Applicants are Beverley Lawton and Annette Lawton. The registered proprietor is Annette Bramwell who should be the sole party in respect thereof. There was no difficulty in making these amendments. 14 The lease in respect of 52, Oakhill Drive is peculiarly different from the other leases of the other flats under consideration in that in clause 293 thereof there is particular reference to the contribution to be made to the landlord’s costs of maintaining, repairing and renewing: “(1) The foundations and exterior walls of the lower flat (2)The concrete floor slab between the upper flat and the lower flat” Although that floor comprises more than just a concrete slab. It was not clear to the respondent if there was a lacuna between the two leases for the flats as to responsibility for, and liability to pay for work done other than to the concrete slab. Furthermore, did liability extend to that part of the slab which was not, by reason of the design of the building, over the lower flat? 15 To the Tribunal’s mind the only sensible construction that could be put upon the lease was that the term “concrete roof slab between the upper flat and lower flat”, was used as a descriptive term to identify that part of the building between the two levels and not to limit, in some peculiar way, the responsibilities of the respondent and place some, of an unusual nature, upon the leaseholder of flat 52. C Inspection 16 On the morning of 24th June 2019 the Tribunal inspected the development on which the subject flats were situated and found it to be a substantial estate of brick properties under tile roofs, some brickwork being rendered, comprising a larger number of houses and a smaller number of flats. There are 13 blocks of four flats, giving an outward appearance of large semi-detached houses, 4 but divide into upstairs and downstairs flats, either side of the central partition wall. 17 It would appear that sufficient space was created on the development for properties to have garden areas and then further green spaces and grassed areas are located throughout the area. Such individual flats as were seen by the Tribunal would appear to have separate rear gardens for each flat in a particular block. 18 The design of the blocks is such that the roofs are not of simple design but are of a particular pitch and hipped nature, with some flat roof areas for the upstairs flats. It is understood that this may have been to allow access to a storage area in the days of coal fired heating, as evidenced by alterations and adaptations seen to some flat areas on the inspection. 19 The development is well situated for local amenities and public transport. At the time of construction it was surrounded by a semi-rural environment, but later development has assimilated it into a larger suburban locality where the boundary between Lydiate and Maghull is no longer easily distinguishable. D The Issues 20 During the course of the proceedings the Applicants sought to indicate with some clarity the issues that they had with the Respondent and its service charges. Although particular in their complaints about the proposed roof works, they raised other issues that they felt should be conveniently raised during the course of the proceedings. If at any stage they were not clear, the Respondent sought to identify with greater clarity the point it thought was being made.