Liable for intercom costs if don't use it?

Smith12sarah

I own a leasehold flat, in a block of 30, so my service charge is 1/30th of costs.
There is an intercom system.  Only 24 flats use this, the other 6 are ground floor with own private entrance and we have a key to the communal entrance to access utility meters.

QUESTION: S20 issued to replace it, should the 6 flats with own entrance and no need for intercom pay their service charge proportion for this?

Intercom is not mentioned in lease only that "the landlord shall maintain, repair, renew..... electrical apparatus..... under and upon the building, except those that serve exclusively an individual flat in the building."  It's a grey area.

Already gone to property tribunal and had first hearing.  Judge said I raised interesting points so now I have to submit more statements.

At the end of the day the intercom is a convenience and not essential too.  There's no lift or disabled access for the building so people can easily access the door on foot and be called on a mobile phone if connections arrive and want to be let in.  The intercom is not integral to the building and is ancillary so can't say it is part of the structure of the building. 

Current cost is working out at £1.3k per flat hence why it is worth challenging.

Plus of course when an intercom breaks, no drama and things carry on, not like if the roof had a big hole in it!

There is a case out there where a leaseholder said they didn't want an intercom and so they didn't want to pay their share for replacement, very similar situation to mine and they won their case.  But judge said they don't look at other cases!

How can I pay for something I get no benefit from at all.  I understand roof repairs give me no direct benefit but it's clearly part of the structure so I am happy being liable for 1/30 of those costs.  Intercom is VERY different.

Can anyone help here?  Any golden one liners?! 

user1977

Bit confused - if the 6 flats have their own entrances, how is the intercom a "convenience" for them rather than completely irrelevant?

cr1mson

Just a thought but is there an argument that the ground floor flats may indirectly benefit as it is part of the security arrangements for the building.

We had an intercom that regularly broke at one flat lived at and that meant that the main door was left on the latch so everyone could get in! The people who suffered the most were the ground floor residents.

Another thought is that if everyone phoned instead there would be increased noise with people coming down to let people in not to mention the noise of phonecalls. Again the ground floor residents would probably suffer the most due to proximity to door being opened/phone calls being made.

Just my view but I would be happy to pay for intercom if on ground floor although price seems steep so would absolutely challenge the cost!

subjecttocontract

Let me play devil's advocate......
Presumably the service charges could include e.g. maintenance of the gardens & grassed areas etc which you may not use or have any interest in but have to contribute to through the service charge.

When you think about what is included in a typical service charge there are a number of elements which will not apply to every individual.

I can't see you winning the argument but can understand why you might think you should.

Smith12sarah

user1977 said:

Bit confused - if the 6 flats have their own entrances, how is the intercom a "convenience" for them rather than completely irrelevant?

It is completely irrelevant, don't think I said it was a convenience for them, only convenient for the other 24 flats!

theoretica

How does an intercom cost £40k for 24 properties?  I think an intercom is a standard expectation now - but does this have bells and whistles?  It seems to me that the point about general security for the block is a good one (and think the mobile phone thing doesn't work so well with the mail/deliveries) but that the security benefit you would get from a basic system, and you could argue strongly against paying for upgrades and extra features.

Smith12sarah

theoretica said:

How does an intercom cost £40k for 24 properties?  I think an intercom is a standard expectation now - but does this have bells and whistles?  It seems to me that the point about general security for the block is a good one (and think the mobile phone thing doesn't work so well with the mail/deliveries) but that the security benefit you would get from a basic system, and you could argue strongly against paying for upgrades and extra features.

unfortunately is has to be cloud based and totally re-wired, I've already spoken to the contractors who quoted in the S20 information.

It doesn't provide any security for me?

Smith12sarah

subjecttocontract said:

Let me play devil's advocate......
Presumably the service charges could include e.g. maintenance of the gardens & grassed areas etc which you may not use or have any interest in but have to contribute to through the service charge.

When you think about what is included in a typical service charge there are a number of elements which will not apply to every individual.

I can't see you winning the argument but can understand why you might think you should.

I know what you mean but I totally understand the indirect benefit I get from the gardens being well kept etc.  But the intercom, if get into legal speak, I get zero 'enjoyment' from.   Say one block (there are 4 in total) said we don't want the intercom, would 30 flats still have to pay their mgnt share for the costs for the properties that do want it?

It really is a grey area!

cr1mson

Smith12sarah said:

subjecttocontract said:

Let me play devil's advocate......
Presumably the service charges could include e.g. maintenance of the gardens & grassed areas etc which you may not use or have any interest in but have to contribute to through the service charge.

When you think about what is included in a typical service charge there are a number of elements which will not apply to every individual.

I can't see you winning the argument but can understand why you might think you should.

I know what you mean but I totally understand the indirect benefit I get from the gardens being well kept etc.  But the intercom, if get into legal speak, I get zero 'enjoyment' from.   Say one block (there are 4 in total) said we don't want the intercom, would 30 flats still have to pay their mgnt share for the costs for the properties that do want it?

It really is a grey area!

Surely it does provide some security even if there is not direct access to your flat from the communal entrance and therefore no increased risk of say a break-in if the communal entrance does not restrict access? If access is not restricted via use of intercom (can't see the mobile phone idea working so good possibilty that door is left unsecured) anyone can enter the building and damage it which depending on damage may mean you end up paying for it! Worse case someone sets a fire!

BarelySentientAI

Smith12sarah said:

subjecttocontract said:

Let me play devil's advocate......
Presumably the service charges could include e.g. maintenance of the gardens & grassed areas etc which you may not use or have any interest in but have to contribute to through the service charge.

When you think about what is included in a typical service charge there are a number of elements which will not apply to every individual.

I can't see you winning the argument but can understand why you might think you should.

I know what you mean but I totally understand the indirect benefit I get from the gardens being well kept etc.  But the intercom, if get into legal speak, I get zero 'enjoyment' from.   Say one block (there are 4 in total) said we don't want the intercom, would 30 flats still have to pay their mgnt share for the costs for the properties that do want it?

It really is a grey area!

There was a case (but I can't find the reference) where ground floor flats complained that they had to pay towards the repair of a lift - for pretty much the same reason as you.

They lost.

Smith12sarah

BarelySentientAI said:

Smith12sarah said:

subjecttocontract said:

Let me play devil's advocate......
Presumably the service charges could include e.g. maintenance of the gardens & grassed areas etc which you may not use or have any interest in but have to contribute to through the service charge.

When you think about what is included in a typical service charge there are a number of elements which will not apply to every individual.

I can't see you winning the argument but can understand why you might think you should.

I know what you mean but I totally understand the indirect benefit I get from the gardens being well kept etc.  But the intercom, if get into legal speak, I get zero 'enjoyment' from.   Say one block (there are 4 in total) said we don't want the intercom, would 30 flats still have to pay their mgnt share for the costs for the properties that do want it?

It really is a grey area!

There was a case (but I can't find the reference) where ground floor flats complained that they had to pay towards the repair of a lift - for pretty much the same reason as you.

They lost.

Lift is different though, as is used by tradesmen etc and access for lighting repairs in communal areas etc.  They have a key to access communal areas so don't need intercom.