Liable for intercom costs if don't use it?

RHemmings

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.

Do you mean Bruce Reekie vs Oakwood Court Residents Association (2023)?

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2023/45.html 

Discussion of the general topic of this thread, and the above case here: https://www.kdllaw.com/legal-updates/do-i-have-to-pay-service-charges-for-items-that-i-do-not-use

TL;DR: it seems likely that the OP will have to pay for the intercom, unless their lease agreement excludes those costs. 

Smith12sarah

cr1mson 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!

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!

Responsibility of leaseholders to pay due care etc to building.  A key also restricts access and i would argue better security as opposed to people just buzzing 'random' people in.  The communal door is half glass so can see who is outside before letting them in too.

It's a tricky one!

Smith12sarah

RHemmings said:

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.

Do you mean Bruce Reekie vs Oakwood Court Residents Association (2023)?

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2023/45.html 

Discussion of the general topic of this thread, and the above case here: https://www.kdllaw.com/legal-updates/do-i-have-to-pay-service-charges-for-items-that-i-do-not-use

TL;DR: it seems likely that the OP will have to pay for the intercom, unless their lease agreement excludes those costs. 

Yes those cases make sense, but I cannot use an intercom.  the mgnt company have confirmed no access needed to my flat, the quote is for 24 flats not 30.  quite a different scenario to lifts.

this case is however similar to mine (paragraph 13):

Decision_18_Falmouth_House_.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

silvercar

You can’t expect people on floors a few floors up to come downstairs to let their visitors in. That’s totally impractical, delivery people can’t be expected to wait while someone walks down a few flights also the occupiers may have food on the Hob/ a baby that can’t be left or any other reason they can’t leave their individual flat to answer the door. 

RHemmings

Smith12sarah said:

RHemmings said:

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.

Do you mean Bruce Reekie vs Oakwood Court Residents Association (2023)?

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2023/45.html 

Discussion of the general topic of this thread, and the above case here: https://www.kdllaw.com/legal-updates/do-i-have-to-pay-service-charges-for-items-that-i-do-not-use

TL;DR: it seems likely that the OP will have to pay for the intercom, unless their lease agreement excludes those costs. 

Yes those cases make sense, but I cannot use an intercom.  the mgnt company have confirmed no access needed to my flat, the quote is for 24 flats not 30.  quite a different scenario to lifts.

this case is however similar to mine (paragraph 13):

Decision_18_Falmouth_House_.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

It seems that the problem here was that the intercom system was replaced with a like and similar one irrespective of whether the existing intercom was working. 

Intercom Major Works

The tribunal’s decision 13. 14. 15.

The tribunal determines that had the intercom been renewed to the applicant’s flat the service charge demanded would have been reasonable. As the respondent did not renew the connection to the property, as required by the lease, the charge is unreasonable and is not payable.

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

 Mr Szczesny, the owner of 22 Falmouth House (a first floor flat) between 2011 and 2016, gave evidence that the tenants were advised in August 2013 of the respondent’s intention to replace the whole of the controlled door system. In October 2013 the tenants were advised that the intention was to replace the intercom system based on the date upon which it was installed, irrespective of whether the system was still working, and that there would not be a tender as the work would be undertaken by Openview under its Long Term Qualifying Agreement with the respondent. The work started in January 2014 and was completed in February 2015. Mr Szczesny referred the tribunal to photographs in the core bundle which show the similarity between the intercom installed as part of the work and the previous intercom. Mr Szczesny was not aware of any intercom at Falmouth House not working. The tenants had been given new entry fobs as part of the works. Mr Szczesny was unable to comment on whether the new fobs afforded the tenants greater security. 

Does your leasehold agreement specifically exclude paying for the intercom? From the KDL Law link above, that appears to be the important factor. 

Smith12sarah

RHemmings said:

Smith12sarah said:

RHemmings said:

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.

Do you mean Bruce Reekie vs Oakwood Court Residents Association (2023)?

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2023/45.html 

Discussion of the general topic of this thread, and the above case here: https://www.kdllaw.com/legal-updates/do-i-have-to-pay-service-charges-for-items-that-i-do-not-use

TL;DR: it seems likely that the OP will have to pay for the intercom, unless their lease agreement excludes those costs. 

Yes those cases make sense, but I cannot use an intercom.  the mgnt company have confirmed no access needed to my flat, the quote is for 24 flats not 30.  quite a different scenario to lifts.

this case is however similar to mine (paragraph 13):

Decision_18_Falmouth_House_.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

It seems that the problem here was that the intercom system was replaced with a like and similar one irrespective of whether the existing intercom was working. 

Intercom Major Works

The tribunal’s decision 13. 14. 15.

The tribunal determines that had the intercom been renewed to the applicant’s flat the service charge demanded would have been reasonable. As the respondent did not renew the connection to the property, as required by the lease, the charge is unreasonable and is not payable.

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

 Mr Szczesny, the owner of 22 Falmouth House (a first floor flat) between 2011 and 2016, gave evidence that the tenants were advised in August 2013 of the respondent’s intention to replace the whole of the controlled door system. In October 2013 the tenants were advised that the intention was to replace the intercom system based on the date upon which it was installed, irrespective of whether the system was still working, and that there would not be a tender as the work would be undertaken by Openview under its Long Term Qualifying Agreement with the respondent. The work started in January 2014 and was completed in February 2015. Mr Szczesny referred the tribunal to photographs in the core bundle which show the similarity between the intercom installed as part of the work and the previous intercom. Mr Szczesny was not aware of any intercom at Falmouth House not working. The tenants had been given new entry fobs as part of the works. Mr Szczesny was unable to comment on whether the new fobs afforded the tenants greater security. 

Yep, this is like for like replacement, same as we are having.

Smith12sarah

silvercar said:

You can’t expect people on floors a few floors up to come downstairs to let their visitors in. That’s totally impractical, delivery people can’t be expected to wait while someone walks down a few flights also the occupiers may have food on the Hob/ a baby that can’t be left or any other reason they can’t leave their individual flat to answer the door. 

People who have a house on 3 floors have to walk downstairs to get to the front door, have to carry baby down stiars if necessary, or take the food off the hob!

I'm not doubting it's very convenient for the other flats to have the intercom, but it's not essential.

RHemmings

Smith12sarah said:

RHemmings said:

Smith12sarah said:

RHemmings said:

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.

Do you mean Bruce Reekie vs Oakwood Court Residents Association (2023)?

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2023/45.html 

Discussion of the general topic of this thread, and the above case here: https://www.kdllaw.com/legal-updates/do-i-have-to-pay-service-charges-for-items-that-i-do-not-use

TL;DR: it seems likely that the OP will have to pay for the intercom, unless their lease agreement excludes those costs. 

Yes those cases make sense, but I cannot use an intercom.  the mgnt company have confirmed no access needed to my flat, the quote is for 24 flats not 30.  quite a different scenario to lifts.

this case is however similar to mine (paragraph 13):

Decision_18_Falmouth_House_.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

It seems that the problem here was that the intercom system was replaced with a like and similar one irrespective of whether the existing intercom was working. 

Intercom Major Works

The tribunal’s decision 13. 14. 15.

The tribunal determines that had the intercom been renewed to the applicant’s flat the service charge demanded would have been reasonable. As the respondent did not renew the connection to the property, as required by the lease, the charge is unreasonable and is not payable.

Reasons for the tribunal’s decision

 Mr Szczesny, the owner of 22 Falmouth House (a first floor flat) between 2011 and 2016, gave evidence that the tenants were advised in August 2013 of the respondent’s intention to replace the whole of the controlled door system. In October 2013 the tenants were advised that the intention was to replace the intercom system based on the date upon which it was installed, irrespective of whether the system was still working, and that there would not be a tender as the work would be undertaken by Openview under its Long Term Qualifying Agreement with the respondent. The work started in January 2014 and was completed in February 2015. Mr Szczesny referred the tribunal to photographs in the core bundle which show the similarity between the intercom installed as part of the work and the previous intercom. Mr Szczesny was not aware of any intercom at Falmouth House not working. The tenants had been given new entry fobs as part of the works. Mr Szczesny was unable to comment on whether the new fobs afforded the tenants greater security. 

Yep, this is like for like replacement, same as we are having.

Are you saying that the intercom in your block of flats is working fine?

I note from revising your OP that your leasehold agreement does not mention the intercom. 

eddddy

Whether you have to contribute to the cost of intercom replacement depends on what your lease says.

It's probably unhelpful to look at other tribunal decisions, because the wording of those leases is very likely to be different from your lease.  The tribunal will concentrate on analysing the wording of your specific lease.


So, for example, the tribunal will carefully consider this sentence from your lease:

"the landlord shall maintain, repair, renew..... electrical apparatus..... under and upon the building, except those that serve exclusively an individual flat in the building."

... and other wording in your lease, to decide whether the wording means that you have to contribute to the cost.



FWIW, based on that sentence alone, it sounds like you do have to contribute. Because the intercom is electrical apparatus which does not exclusively serve an individual flat.

(But did an intercom exist when the lease was first granted?)

35har1old

Smith12sarah said:

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?! 

To say  that it's not part of the structure of the building is clearly wrong as it wired to 24 flats
I had property  i had to pay maintenance for green areas but these green areas where not visible from my property they where roughly a 10 minute walk away and they didn't provide any amenity value