• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / Latest News / We just made it up: landlord pays back £120,000 for intercom costs at St David’s Square that it cannot account for (and is leased for eternity)

We just made it up: landlord pays back £120,000 for intercom costs at St David’s Square that it cannot account for (and is leased for eternity)

May 9, 2023 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Memo to Michael Gove: Is this an example the professional freehold-owning landlordism that anti-leasehold reform lobbyists have in mind?

Had all 436 leaseholders taken part in the action the pay-back would have been £479,000. Instead, it will be only £120,000 for those who participated in the court action

In the epic service charge challenge at St David’s Square, in London’s Docklands, mounted by Liam Spender (right), the tribunal gave the landlord a second chance to account for the costs of the door entry, intercom and electronic gates.

These are leased for eternity from Essex firm Countryside Communications, not affiliated with the developer of the same name).

Countryside was tapped up to rent these systems to the estate by the original developer, St George, a part of Berkeley Group. The tribunal’s reasonable assumption was that the landord, FIT Nominee Limited and FIT Nominee 2 Limited, both subsidiaries of the NatWest Group plc, or its managing agent FirstPort, would be able to distinguish between the costs for rental and maintenance.

But they couldn’t.

The ruling here states:

The Respondents were asked to provide a breakdown of the costs of the Countryside Contracts for the relevant period illustrating specifically how much is attributed to rent and how much to maintenance. They have been unable to provide a breakdown from Countryside. This is surprising. Countryside must
have some idea, at least at a ball park level, of the split. The Respondents referred the Tribunal to estimates they obtained from other contractors …

Since August 2021 the landlord of St David’s Square has been arguing that the prices charged were reasonable because they were the fair costs of renting the systems instead of buying them outright. It now appears that there was never any evidence to support this assertion.

At a hearing in January 2023 the landlord asserted that the costs could never be challenged as being unreasonable because they are part of a long-term agreement. It now appears there was never any evidence to back this key assertion in the landlord’s case.

The charges continued in 2021 before being reduced by 50% from 1 January 2022. Even with the 50% reduction leaseholders are still paying more than 100% over the amount allowed by the Tribunal in its latest ruling.

The ruling continues:

“Faced with an absence of information from Countryside, the Tribunal agrees with the Applicants that these estimates should be followed in relation to a determination of reasonable costs for the relevant period. This represents an 81% reduction in costs originally sought by the Respondents. The Applicants submit that the same reduction should be applied to the other fittings: TV Distribution and Car Park Gates and Barriers. The Tribunal accepts that this is a pragmatic approach.”

For the participating leaseholders, the reduction works out at an average of around £1,000 for every flat with a covered car parking space paying service charges for the period 2018 – 2020.

The 120-odd leaseholders (out of 436) who participated are also protected from the landlord’s legal costs.

Those leaseholders at St David’s Square who did not take part may be feeling a little sour, and it is an open question how useful the ruling would be if they were to mount their own claim at this stage. They will get nothing back from the ruling, and may yet be forced to pay the landlord’s legal costs via the service charge.

The landlord’s barrister said at a hearing in January that the landlord intended to charge leaseholders for its legal costs, as is its right under the lease. The landlord has not put a number on its legal costs to date, but at the January hearing the landlord’s barrister said the legal bill was a figure so large as to be “challengeable in its own right”.

Given the damning findings of the Tribunal, it remains to be seen whether the landlord will carry out its intention to bill leaseholders for its legal costs.

The government is promising extensive reform of residential leasehold before the end of the current Parliament. It is unknown if these reforms will stop the current “Catch 22” situation in which landlords are allowed to use leaseholders’ money to pay lawyers to defend them from the same leaseholders, and to recover their costs even if they go on to lose the case.

The landlord and the leaseholders have until Friday 2 June 2023 to ask for permission to appeal any aspect of the decision.


The 3 May 2023 ruling on Countryside’s costs is here:

https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.03-Decision-on-Countryside-Costs.pdf

Applicants further issues on Countryside’s costs:

https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.02-Applicants-Further-Submissions-on-Countryside-Issues.pdf

JB Leitch tells tribunal no breakdown of Countryside costs is available:

https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Leto-JBL-to-FTT.pdf

Original 29 March 2023 FTT ruling:

https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.03.29-FTT-St-Davids-Square.pdf

Related posts:

Mr Spender goes to war over St David’s Square service charges … and landlord caves in over more than £100,000 buildings insurance commissions on eve of tribunal St David's SquareVictory over FirstPort at St David’s Square with £100,000s to be re-payed to leaseholders over insurance and leasing of ancient door entry system FirstPort blows a fuse: Why are energy subsidies absent from the £265,784 electricity bills – an increase of 154% – at St David’s Square, tribunal is asked St David's SquareFirstPort faces leasehold rebellion over service charges at St David’s Square St David's SquareFirstPort jacks up accounting fees at St David’s Square by 80% … and then bodges accounts, leaving leaseholders overcharged by more than £17,500

Category: FirstPort, JB Leitch, Latest News, Liam Spender, NewsTag: Countryside Communications, First-tier Tribunal, FirstPort, FIT Nominee 2 Limited, FIT Nominee Limited, JB Leitch, Liam Spender, NatWest Group plc, St David's Square

Sign up to the LKP newsletter

Fill in the link here

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (44) ARMA (91) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (33) CMA (46) Commonhold (56) Competition and Markets Authority (42) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (55) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (55) Israel Moskovitz (32) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (36) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (31) Justin Bates (41) Justin Madders MP (75) Katie Kendrick (41) Law Commission (61) LEASE (68) Leasehold Advisory Service (65) Leasehold houses (32) Liam Spender (39) Long Harbour (51) Lord Greenhalgh (32) Martin Boyd (87) McCarthy and Stone (43) National Leasehold Campaign (42) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Retirement (38) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (67) Sir Peter Bottomley (211) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (34) Vincent Tchenguiz (45) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Investors see gold in retirement housing, but oldies have taken a look and remain wary … Brighter developers are pushing for change
Next Post: Net Zero is going to be difficult throughout the world … but with leasehold tenure, next to impossible »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Angie

    May 10, 2023 at 7:47 am

    If only the FTT had had the power in the first instance to order the landlord to account for the costs to the leaseholders – Liam’s job of proving they were being ripped off would have been a lot easier.
    Instead the onus is on leaseholders, the party without access to the underlying records, to persuade the FTT that there is a basis for their claim that they are being ripped off. Liam was fortunate to be put in touch with someone in an estate with a near-identical entry system, and could provide evidence which showed the huge cost disparity. But what if he hadn’t? The FTT might have said ‘Mr Spender was unable to show the FTT…’ and – as happens so often – the FTT gives the landlord the benefit of the doubt, or makes a paltry gesture of knocking 10% off the charges levied. This is a common outcome in insurance commission challenges – landlord discloses zilch, FTT doesn’t call their bluff by saying ‘we’ll assume this is information isn’t forthcoming because commissions are in the region of 50% so we will reduce the charge by 50%…’. Instead it awards a nominal decrease. Landlord remains quids in, leaseholders troop away exhausted by their battle, with minor recompense.

    • Abbas Sabokbar

      May 10, 2023 at 11:36 am

      Absolutely spot on. Having taken my case to FTT for the delayed majorworks subject to an eight years old S2o, the hearing was concluded by the judge admitting FTT limitations and insisting that the onus of proving the increase of cost in 8 years, was down to the leaseholders !!! The freeholder continues to refuse to undertake the urgently needed work with the significant S20 estimates awaiting us all.
      How FTT could not accept the increase in the cost as the result of the unreasonable delay in 8 years, is beyond my comprehension!!
      Although we have managed to convince the freeholder to get rid of Firstport but they have been replaced by yet another useless property management firm.
      The system is designed to ensure the small people don’t win whilst the offshore based charlatans continue to reap the benefits of the deregulated freehold ownership market.
      It’s a disgrace really.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Barry Passmore

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2025 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web