MALTINGS CLOSE RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
MEMBER UPDATE — SERVICE CHARGES & BOW SCHOOL ALARM
August 2026
Dear members,
First, an apology on the technology front: some members have told us they were unable to open our recent email. That email should also have included an important update for members — particularly in Block D — on the Bow School alarm. We are therefore resending everything in full below: our answer to the service charge question many of you have asked, followed by the Bow School update.
A note on who received our recent update. The update addressed to “leaseholders” went to every leaseholder on our database. It was a generic communication, and it therefore included non-members. Members stand in a different position, and it is worth restating why.
You are protected. As members, you are legally protected by the advice the Association has obtained and by the position we have taken on service charges on your behalf. That protection rests on what we have uncovered.
The accounts behind the demands cannot be trusted. More than £300,000 of expenditure remains unaccounted for. The 2022 and 2023 leaseholder accounts — the very accounts on which the current demands are based — were prepared by an accountant engaged by TTMC who has since been struck off by the ICAEW. The current accountants are themselves under formal ICAEW investigation in relation to the missing sums. Demands built on those accounts are demands built on sand.
The insolvency risk is real. TTMC also remains subject to winding-up proceedings brought by 3Deling Laser Scanning Services and S Harris Associates. If you pay service charges to TTMC now, you risk paying money into an entity that goes under — and if that happens, your money goes to TTMC’s creditors, not to your building. The consequences would be serious either way: the sums paid would be lost and could not simply be raised again, yet the services they were meant to fund would still need paying for. When a new management company takes over, your next service charge bill could be double what you normally pay. We are sure a £10,000 service charge bill is not what any of our members wants — but the alternative, if the money disappears into an insolvency, is that services stop altogether: no lighting in the communal areas, no cleaning, no maintenance.
And do not expect the landlord to save the day. HomeGround has a duty to step in if management fails. But residents’ experience of HomeGround to date is that its interest begins and ends with collecting your ground rent.
That’s the reworded text above, ready to copy. Two quick cautions before it circulates: the winding-up sentence is worth checking against where the 3Deling appeal and the assigned S Harris debt actually stand as of today, since “remains subject to winding-up proceedings” is the claim TTMC would attack first; and the struck-off accountant and £10,000/double-bill figures should be ones you can evidence or comfortably defend as estimates if challenged.
PART 1 — SERVICE CHARGES: CAN I STOP PAYING?
Since our update, a number of you have asked the same question: can I stop paying my service charge? We would rather give you a straight answer than a comfortable one — and for members, the answer is more protective than you might expect.
You are protected by the legal advice we have obtained and act on. Everything below reflects advice taken by the Association and given to it, and members act on the Association’s guidance — you are not working this out alone, and you are not exposed alone.
The 2026 charges. Our 2026 service charge application asks the Tribunal to determine what, if anything, is payable. Until the Tribunal makes that determination, there is no established sum due — so you do not need to pay the disputed 2026 charges now. That is precisely what the application is for: the Tribunal, not TTMC, will decide what is payable.
The 2021–2025 charges. Our challenges to the 2021–2025 service charges remain live and are still to be heard. Those years are before the Tribunal too, and nothing is finally due until it decides.
What happens if TTMC sues. Two of TTMC’s county court claims are already stayed — one by DDJ Chakravarty on 13 August 2025 after a contested hearing at which TTMC’s own counsel appeared, the other by DJ Lynch on 26 June 2026 on the court’s own initiative, unchallenged. A stayed claim cannot proceed to judgment, and enforcement — bailiffs, charging orders, attachment of earnings — requires a judgment. Forfeiture is separately barred by section 81 of the Housing Act 1996 and section 167 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 unless the amount has been admitted or finally determined. Any further claim TTMC issues while the Tribunal proceedings are on foot will meet the same fate: our lawyers will apply for a stay or strike-out as an abuse of process, with costs consequences for TTMC. Those costs would be sought on the indemnity basis, because TTMC issues these claims knowing of the existing court orders. So if TTMC did issue a claim against you, the likely outcome is not that you pay — it is that TTMC pays: a costs recovery that could cover at least half of the disputed service charges, and possibly all of them.
Your additional statutory protections. These are worth checking against your own paperwork:
• Section 21B, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985— every demand must be accompanied by the prescribed summary of tenants’ rights and obligations. If yours was not, you may withhold, and your lease’s late-payment provisions do not bite while you do. Check your demands.
• Section 20B — costs incurred more than 18 months before the demand, without notice within that period, are not payable.
• Section 20 — where consultation was not carried out, your contribution is capped at £250 for qualifying works and £100 a year for long-term agreements.
• Section 19 — only reasonable costs, reasonably incurred, are payable at all.
• Schedule 8, Building Safety Act 2022 — for qualifying leases, certain remediation and associated professional costs cannot be passed on.
One caution. The stays and the Tribunal proceedings do not cancel the charges. If the Tribunal ultimately determines that some amount is payable, that amount can then be pursued. Whatever you withhold, keep it available — and if you prefer certainty, you can pay under protest, because under section 27A(5) of the 1985 Act paying concedes nothing and you keep every right to challenge the charge afterwards.
What membership actually gives you. Members are represented in the Tribunal proceedings, where the payability and reasonableness of these charges will actually be decided, and we pursue applications under section 20C of the 1985 Act (and paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act) so that the costs of this litigation are not recycled back into your service charges or levied on you as administration charges. And under Article 22D.1 of our Articles, the Association will cover its own legal costs and the legal costs of any member named as a party to litigation arising from these matters — no member stands alone.
This update is general information for members, not advice on any individual lease or demand. If you have received a demand, a letter of claim, or a claim form, contact us before deciding what to do — we will check your position against the grounds above.
PART 2 — BOW SCHOOL ALARM (BLOCK D & ALL AFFECTED RESIDENTS)
Update: the school has responded — and it’s a positive first step
Last week we wrote to you about the formal legal notice the Association served on Bow School over the alarm that has repeatedly disturbed residents — particularly in Block D — for more than eighteen months, including in the early hours of weekend mornings.
We are pleased to report that the Headteacher, Mr Daniel Lye, responded to the Association within 24 hours of receiving our letter.
What the school has said
In his response, the Headteacher has apologised to residents, expressing his “sincere regret for the disturbance and frustration caused to local residents, particularly where alarm activations have occurred during unsociable hours and have disrupted sleep and wellbeing”, and acknowledging that residents “are entitled to enjoy their homes without unnecessary disturbance”.
Importantly, he has also acknowledged that although previous efforts were made to address the problem, those actions “have not had the desired impact in preventing these issues”. In practical terms, the school has confirmed that:
1. the alarm is subject to regular inspection and servicing under a planned maintenance agreement, and keyholder and monitoring arrangements are in place under a service level agreement;
2. following our letter, the school has asked for a further review of these issues and its contractor arrangements as a matter of priority — including re-engaging its alarm provider to carry out any remedial measures, identify any calibration issues, and explore further mitigations;
3. the school will review the effectiveness of its current monitoring and response arrangements and identify any further measures required to prevent recurrence; and
4. the Headteacher will update the Association as soon as possible with details of further improvements, and has committed to working constructively with the Association to resolve the matter.
What this means — and what happens next
This is a constructive and welcome response, and we thank Mr Lye for engaging so promptly and in the cooperative spirit our letter invited. It shows what the Association can achieve when members bring issues to us.
However, members should be clear: warm words must now be matched by results. Our formal notice under section 82(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 remains live. It is the outcome — an end to the disturbances — that matters, and we have asked for a substantive response, including the cause of the repeated activations and the steps taken to prevent recurrence, by 31 August 2026. If the alarm continues to disturb residents, our members retain the right to bring proceedings in the magistrates’ court without further notice, and the Council’s Environmental Health team remains copied in.
Please keep reporting — it matters more than ever
Evidence of what happens from this point on is now critical. If the alarm sounds again — at any hour — please record the date, time and duration (a phone decibel app screenshot is ideal) and tell us using the members’ form:
Report a disturbance: https://form.jotform.com/262294490621054
If activations stop, your reports will confirm the problem is resolved. If they continue, your reports become the evidence on which further action will be built. Either way, every report counts.
We will update you again as soon as we hear further from the school.
We are stronger together.
With warm regards,
Maltings Close Residents’ Association
info@maltingsclose.org | www.maltingsclose.org
THE RESPONSE FROM BOW SCHOOL
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Recurring Alarm Noise Nuisance Affecting Residents of Maltings Close
Thank you for your letter dated 17 August 2026 regarding the recurring activation of the school’s alarm system and the impact this has had on residents of Maltings Close.
I would like to express my sincere regret for the disturbance and frustration caused to local residents, particularly where alarm activations have occurred during unsociable hours and have disrupted sleep and wellbeing. As a school, we value our relationship with the local community and recognise that residents are entitled to enjoy their homes without unnecessary disturbance.
Please be assured that we are, and will continue, to treat this matter seriously.
I am aware that colleagues have been in communication, previously, in relation to the issues described in your letter. I am also aware that there have been efforts made to investigate and address these problems. Clearly these actions, while they appear to have reduced incidences of alarm activation, have not had the desired impact in preventing these issues.
In response to specific suggestions raised in your letter, I can confirm that:
-
The alarm is subject to regular inspection and servicing as part of a pre-planned maintenance agreement.
-
The school has key holder and monitoring arrangements in place again as part of a service level agreement.
I can confirm, since receiving your latest correspondence, that I have asked for further review of these issues and the arrangements with our contractors as a matter of priority. This will include re-engaging with our Alarm Provider to ensure any remedial measures required are carried out, to identify any calibration issues and to explore any other mitigations which can be put into place. We will also work with other relevant contractors, reviewing the effectiveness of current monitoring and response arrangements, and identifying any further measures required to prevent recurrence.
As this work is ongoing, I am writing at this stage to acknowledge receipt of your letter and to reassure you that the school is committed to resolving the issue and to working constructively with the Residents Association to achieve a satisfactory resolution. I appreciate the measured and cooperative approach set out in your letter and share the view that this matter is best resolved collaboratively.
Thank you for bringing these concerns to our attention once more. I will update you as soon as possible with details of further improvements or mitigations which are in place.
Yours faithfully,
Mr. D Lye
Headteacher
Bow School
Twelvetrees Crescent
Bow
London
E3 3QW