126 Carmelite Way, the Friary
- The building
- A three-bedroom maisonette on the first floor of a block of seven dwellings, three storeys with a flat roof originally installed in 1968, on a former council estate.
- What was applied for
- A determination under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 of about £18,500 of charges for roof works and window replacement, with section 20C and a later paragraph 5A application.
- The figures
- Seven dwellings in the block, share one seventh of building expenses. Roof charge £12,346.11. Roof installed 1968, over-felted in the mid 1990s, replaced 2018 across 22 blocks. Bundle of 872 pages.
- Costs
- Section 20C granted in part, limiting recoverable costs to two thirds, and the later paragraph 5A application granted on the same terms. The reduction was made despite the leaseholder losing, to recognise the council's communications failings and a lease less clear than it should have been.
What Happened
The council replaced 22 block roofs across the estate in 2018 under a qualifying long term agreement entered into in 2012 and 2013, building the new roof over the existing one with new insulation. The leaseholder was charged £12,346.11 for the roof and separately invoiced for windows she had agreed in writing to have replaced at her own cost.
What the Tribunal Held
Dismissed. The windows fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, not being service costs under the lease and so not a service charge as defined, and in any event the windows were part of her demise. Consultation was complied with. Replacement in 2018 was reasonable, overlaying rather than stripping was reasonable, the substituted system was a reasonable alternative, and the insulation's fire rating did not make the roof unreasonable because it was fully bonded within a system rated for external fire performance. The tribunal criticised the council for not having proper regard to the interests of lessees, failing to consider her means and communicating poorly, but held the failings in process had no effect on the works or the cost. Hardship alone cannot make a service charge unreasonable.
What it means for a block here. A landlord can win outright on the substance and still lose a third of its litigation costs, because section 20C turns on the whole conduct of the matter and not just who won.