[2025] UKUT 19 (LC)

This is a charge of £332.94 paid to Property Run Contracts for the replacement of a fan in flat 3. Mr Rana said in his witness statement:

“23.

This was the cost charged to us for the replacement of a fan inside flat 3. That is my flat. It needed replacing as a result of the roof leak and was part of the insurance claim. Firstly, it has been paid by insurers to the Respondent as confirmed in an email from Mr Gurvits to me dated 29 September 2022. Secondly it is not a cost which may be charged to service charges and thirdly it is an excessive cost. We don’t dispute the cost of the fan itself which was £61.98 but we do dispute the 2.5 hours of labour charged. It literally took less than half an hour.”

The email referred to is annexed to the statement and is Mr Gurvits’ reply to an email from Mr Rana in which he asked about the fan. Mr Gurvits said:

“Have located the invoice and this was part of the insurance claim at the time so you haven’t had to cover the cost”.

It is hard to see how Mr Rana’s evidence could have been challenged in light of the content of Mr Gurvits’ email of 29 September 2022. Yet in its comments on the Scott Schedule the respondent said:

“not covered by insurance so charged to service charge”

It is impossible to understand on what basis the FTT found that that comment was true in the face of the appellants’ evidence and Mr Gurvits’ own email, and its finding is set aside. I substitute the Tribunal’s decision that this charge was not payable by the leaseholders, first because it appears to have been covered by insurance and second because, again, it is work done in an individual flat which is not within the definition of the service charge in the lease.