Commission a UK commercial service-charge review as an occupier

A commercial service-charge review should start with the actual lease, relevant variations and the budget or year-end statement being questioned. A charge that looks high is not necessarily outside the agreement, and a plausible total can still contain an unsupported allocation. The provider needs the contractual and financial context before proposing recovery work.

Identify the property, occupier, service-charge period and amounts already paid. Explain whether the company wants help understanding a demand, checking supporting expenditure, challenging an allocation or pursuing a defined dispute. These objectives can require different skills and deliverables.

RICS's Service charges in commercial property standard is aimed at UK commercial property managers and occupiers and promotes transparent administration, budgeting and dispute resolution. It also contains requirements for RICS members and regulated firms. Its professional framework should be considered with the actual lease and applicable legal advice, rather than treated as a replacement contract.

Ask the candidate to identify the relevant standard, lease provisions and period-specific issues in its proposed approach. The company should know the basis of the review and which questions require a solicitor rather than an accounting calculation.

Three different questions can sit inside one disputed charge: whether the lease permits recovery, whether the calculation follows the agreed basis and whether the underlying expenditure is supported. Ask the provider to distinguish these questions in the work plan. A missing invoice does not by itself answer the legal entitlement question.

Identify who interprets the lease and who checks the numbers. A surveyor, accountant and solicitor may contribute different expertise. The engagement should name the responsible reviewer and the route for obtaining additional advice, with costs approved before they arise.

Ask for an anonymized sample findings schedule. A useful finding identifies the charge, relevant evidence, issue, financial effect if established and recommended next step. Avoid a report that labels every unfamiliar item overcharging without explaining the contractual or evidential basis.

Keep the initial document assessment distinct from a full investigation. The reviewer may need more records before estimating the value of a challenge. A defined first stage can establish whether further work is proportionate without committing the company to a broad recovery engagement immediately.

List the documents already held by the occupier, such as budgets, year-end certificates, demands and prior correspondence. Then identify additional schedules, invoices or allocation details the reviewer proposes to request. Have the relevant adviser confirm the company's access rights and the appropriate request process.

Name the person authorized to communicate with the landlord or managing agent. Agree whether the provider drafts requests for company approval or sends them within a defined authority. A review should not create conflicting requests from the finance team, property manager and outside adviser.

Ask how the provider deals with incomplete records. The report should distinguish a demonstrated error from a question that remains unresolved because evidence was unavailable. Estimated recovery should not treat every missing document as a confirmed refundable charge.

If the property contains several services or occupier groups, request the allocation structure needed to understand the company's share. A total building invoice does not establish the amount attributable to one unit. The reviewer should explain the relevant pool and denominator before concluding that the share is wrong.

For a simplified hypothetical service pool of £120,000 and an approved occupier share of 8%, the calculated charge is £9,600 before other relevant adjustments. If the demand shows £10,800, the £1,200 difference needs an explanation. The example tests arithmetic; it does not establish that the pool or percentage is contractually appropriate.

Ask the provider to separate changes in the total pool from changes in the occupier's share. A larger demand can result from increased expenditure, a changed apportionment or both. Combining those effects can make the discussion with the managing agent unnecessarily confusing.

Review balancing charges and credits against amounts already billed or paid. A year-end statement may reconcile a budget to actual expenditure, so the amount currently due is not necessarily the occupier's full annual share. The working paper should identify the prior charges included in its calculation.

Have the provider explain treatment of items such as deferred work or amounts collected for future activity where they are relevant to the documents. The answer should be grounded in the lease, agreed arrangements and applicable professional guidance, with legal questions escalated rather than resolved by a spreadsheet label.

If the proposal charges a percentage of savings, define the base and period. A credit for the reviewed year, a reduction in a future budget and a projected multi-year saving are different outcomes. The company should know exactly which outcome can trigger an invoice.

State how the fee treats amounts already disputed by the occupier or identified by another adviser. Identify any minimum fee, separate legal cost or charge for reviewing additional periods. A recovery percentage can obscure substantial work outside the initially quoted scope.

Agree who may accept a settlement, withdraw a point or make a concession. The reviewer can recommend an outcome, but the company needs an authorized decision-maker who understands its broader occupancy relationship and any legal implications.

Ask for the alternative if the evidence does not support a challenge. A sound engagement should allow the provider to conclude that a charge is explained. Paying for a review should not create pressure to characterize every question as a recoverable error.

At completion, obtain the findings schedule, key source documents, correspondence and the agreed or unresolved outcome for each point. Reconcile any credit or refund to the company's ledger and compare the provider's fee with the contractual definition of the result.

Identify whether a recurring issue can be prevented through better budget review, a clearer internal property file or timely requests for supporting schedules. Assign the practical change to the employee who handles future demands. The company should not have to repeat the same historical reconstruction each year.

Select a reviewer whose expertise matches the lease and evidence questions and whose commercial terms remain clear if the result is modest. The useful service is a disciplined explanation of the charge and a supported route for resolving specific issues, with the occupier retaining control over decisions.