The summary is that the landlord failed to establish a sinking fund to collect money to set against major works. A large lump sum payment was demanded creating a huge burden and was based on estimates without surveyor inspection based on what the surveyor thought would e required for a set of properties on the landlord's books without consideration that the new freehold bought (where I am a lessee) already had major works done in 2000/2001. The other adjacent properties had not had this kind of work done. This new freehold where the contention is was bought in 2004. There is legal ambiquity whether the contents in the lease agreement support the setting of a sinking fund in a manner that sums be collected early for a target amount towards major works at a future date. The Leasehold Advisory Service pamphlet appears to suggest that a sinking fund of this manner shoudl operate with regard to inent of this type of clause. The landlord's solictors had acknowledged that sums were demanded in contravention of the lease terms but then redirected through the service charge estimates received on March 2012 for 2012, 50% in retrospect from 25th Dec 2011 to 24 June 2012, and then the next from 25 June 2012 to 24 December 2012. In initially I had asked to pay in monthly instalments for the estimated amount demanded over a period that would at least somewhat reflect the time the sinking fund should have been built. But this was refused. The works were completed by the first week of September 2012 and actual cost invoices should have been received. A Part 18 request for such invoices and actual costs have been side-stepped by the claimant in reply, who resent the estimates and the composition of the estimates only. A response stating that the Part 18 request has not been met has been sent to the claimant. A defence has been filed within the time limit and a N152 and N150) just received. I would appreciate advice on how to fill the N150 to get the matter heard by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, especially as I would like to bring up further issues such as excessively high insurance premiums (approximately £2,000 per annum) being charged and subsequent large service charge demands met for the internal refurbishment of carpets, which in the view of the 6 lessees of the property is not required as the carpet is in good order and a high charge for electrical rewiring, when the common parts only have two light bulbs.