Establish the matter with relation to the proper construction and application of the lease terms and, in particular, the management and the service element charges that were to be produced to the lease holder.
Gell v 32 St John's Road (Eastbourne) Management Company Ltd [2021]
Summary
Gell v 32 St John's Road (Eastbourne) Management Company Ltd [2021] is predominantly developed along the lines of the singular issue that challenges the common sense of the service charges by the management company to a leaseholder. The matter was lastly escalated to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), which was by now left to establish the matter with relation to the proper construction and application of the lease terms and, in particular, the management and the service element charges that were to be produced to the lease holder.
Facts
The appellant, Mr Gell, was the leaseholder of a flat at 32 St John's Road, Eastbourne. The respondent, 32 St John's Road (Eastbourne) Management Company Ltd, was the management company for the building of which the appellant was one of the flat holders. Their functions included the collection of service charges from leaseholders, having regard to the provisions of the lease, in order to recover sums expended by them in managing and maintaining the building. Disputes arose as to the amount and reasonableness of the charges.
Mr. Gell contested a number of service charge demands from his management company due to what he felt were detail errors in some of the charges he considered to be excessive and not a result of services rendered. He cited such cases as a case of what he interpreted as overcharging for maintenance work from the management company or cases where they charged for services "not reasonably incurred or provided" to quote his words. Also, Mr. Gell addressed the lack of transparency and inadequate reasoned responses to the charges.
Issues
1. Whether the management company's service charges were reasonable for demanding.
2. Whether the expenditure listed in the service charges were made genuinely and were that much necessary?
3. Whether the terms of the lease which specify the calculation and apportionment of the service charges is properly interpreted?
4. Whether the documentation substantiating the service charges is adequate and clear in its loan service.
First Instance
Mr Gell, in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), raised several challenges to the service charges: that they were excessive and did not reasonably reflect the works or services carried out, and he also raised questions over the necessity for, and quality of, some of the maintenance works that he had been charged for.
The First-tier Tribunal heard the submissions of both the parties and further inquired about the breakdown of the service charges, the invoices in question, and evidence with regard to other professionals. Some of the grounds were accepted in favor of Mr. Gell, finding some of these charges way too high and not adequately justified. The service charges were, therefore, reduced to a justified level.
Decision on Appeal
The management company subsequently appealed the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in the hopes of reclaiming the full service charges. The grounds of appeal put before the Upper Tribunal were two: first, being plainly wrong on the evidence; and, second, making an error of law in the construction of the lease.
The Upper Tribunal took into account the conclusions of the First-tier Tribunal and, more specifically, sought to focus on the reasons for reduction and the evidence supporting that. In all the circumstances, it was satisfied the First-tier Tribunal was correct to find, as it did, that the original service charges had been charged and were found not fully justified and that the reductions which the First-tier Tribunal made were adequate.
Furthermore, the Upper Tribunal allowed the principles on the charging of services to be reasonable and clear. It reiterated that service charges should be proportionate to what is given and received by the leaseholders and should be justified by cogent and persuasive proof.
Comments
The decision in Gell v 32 St John's Road (Eastbourne) Management Company Ltd [2021] brings to the fore quite some salient issues relating to the management of service charges in residential leases:
1. Reasonableness and Justification: The service charges by landlords and management companies should not only be reasonable but, at the same time, justifiable. This justifiability is to be complemented by the production of detailed accounts and evidence showing clearly the services carried out and if such services were necessary.
2. Transparency and Documentation: It is vital to have proper documentation in the computation and allocation of service charges. The computation and allocation need to be transparent. Landlords and management companies might have to produce adequate records of expense and the reason for it.
3. Quality and Necessity of Works: The linking of scales of service charges to works, that has to be of necessity and satisfactorily carried out; by not properly relating to the works on behalf of another or that have not been carried out satisfactorily.
4. Role of Tribunals: The First-tier and Upper Tribunals play an important rule in the scrutiny and adjudication of service charge disputes. The decisions further uphold the lease terms and fair practice.
5. Precedent for Future Disputes: The case lays down a precedent in the dispute stock, on service charges, and stipulates what would amount to reasonable charges and the evidence that is needed for them to be backed up.
It has just been proved by the final conclusions of the case of Gell v 32 St John's Road (Eastbourne) Management Company Ltd [2021] that the two balances assert the rights of the landlord or management company to recover costs, while on the other hand, guarding the interests of the leaseholder from unreasonable and unjustified charges. The judgment supports the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in dealing with service charges under residential leases.
Social
