# LEASEHOLD SERVICE CHARGE CHALLENGE
Date: 12 September 2032
Parties: Sophie Williams and Redbrook Estates Limited
## 1. Purpose and parties
Sophie Williams, leaseholder of Flat 8, Redbrook Court, 41 Mill Lane, Manchester M20 4QJ, challenges Redbrook Estates Limited's demand dated 1 September 2032 for £4,860 for the year ending 31 March 2032. The lease dated 18 June 2024 requires payment of a reasonable proportion of costs incurred in maintaining, repairing, insuring and managing the structure and common parts. Sophie has paid the undisputed £1,200 on-account amount and disputes £3,660.
## 2. Facts, scope and terms
The demand includes £3,200 for roof replacement, £900 for a management fee, £500 for communal electricity and £260 for administration. Redbrook supplied no itemised invoices with the demand. Sophie received no section 20 consultation notice before the roof work, which the contractor's estimate says cost £25,600 across eight flats, or £3,200 each. The lease's service-charge schedule contains roof repair and insurance but does not identify a separate administration charge.
## 3. Process and responsibilities
Sophie also challenges reasonableness under section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Two written quotations obtained from independent contractors price comparable roof work at £18,400 and £19,200, while Redbrook has not explained the £25,600 cost or the £900 increase in its management fee from £600 last year. She does not allege bad faith; she asks for evidence, a fair apportionment and credit for sums not contractually recoverable.
## 4. Evidence, records and safeguards
Under section 20 of the 1985 Act, the usual consultation limit is £250 per qualifying tenant unless the landlord obtains a dispensation from the First-tier Tribunal. Sophie asks Redbrook to identify any consultation notices and any dispensation application or order. On the present information, she cannot accept liability for roof costs above £250, while reserving the right to challenge even that amount if the work or apportionment is unreasonable.
## 5. Review, escalation and outcome
Sophie requests within 21 days, by 3 October 2032, a full section 21 summary of relevant costs, the accounts for 1 April 2031 to 31 March 2032, invoices and payment evidence for the roof, the management-fee calculation, electricity bills and the lease apportionment schedule. She also requests the facilities for inspection and copying available under section 22, using the statutory procedure. She asks for a corrected demand crediting £3,660 unless Redbrook supplies a lawful and evidenced basis for a different figure. She will pay future properly demanded undisputed charges.
## 6. Reservations and practical protections
Pending the requested information, Sophie holds the £3,660 in a separate account and will not use it for personal spending; she recognises that withholding disputed service charges can create risk and will obtain advice before any further payment decision. If no adequate response arrives by 3 October, she may apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under section 27A for a determination of liability and reasonableness, and may seek an injunction or other remedy only where appropriate. This letter is a genuine dispute, not consent to forfeiture or an admission of arrears.
## 7. England and Wales law and completion
This completed fictional challenge is dated 12 September 2032 and governed by England and Wales law. Sophie asks Redbrook to preserve tenders, invoices, consultation records, minutes and correspondence, and to communicate through her at the address above. She remains willing to meet on 10 October to resolve the accounting, but reserves all statutory rights, including rights concerning limitation, consultation, inspection and a tribunal determination.